ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ADVISORY …

TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

ADVISORY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AUTHORITY: SECTION 381.0068, FLORIDA STATUTES

TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL (TRAP) MEETING

DATE: TIME:

Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:00 A.M.

PLACE: Orlando Airport Marriott 7499 Augusta National Drive Orlando, Florida 32822 407 -851-9000

THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

AGENDA

1. Introductions

2. Review minutes of last meeting

3. Implementation of SB 550 10-12 SB 550: Five-year System Evaluation 10-06 Existing Systems 10-17 Fees 10-19 Repair Standards

4. Old Business 07 -23 Performance-Based Systems-Standards 08-15 Bedroom Definition 09-01 Non-Transient Recreational Vehicle Space Flow 09-02 Metered Water Use Records 10-02 Soil Replacement for Drip Systems 10-05 Part II (Florida Keys) SB 550, Update standards 10-09 L TAR and Alternative Drainfield Geometry for PBTS 10-10 Site Plans, Mounds 10-11 PBTS design standards

5. New Business 10-04 Sand lined trenches 10-13 Portable Restroom and Holding Tank Permitting 10-14 Setback from DEP water Main 10-16 Flow Calculation - Multi-purpose rooms 10-18 Repair Permit Fees

6. Public Comment

Scott Johnson, P.E. Tony Macaluso Derek Woodruff Greg Liskey PROFESSIONAL EN(i[NEERS REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY SEPTIC TANK INDUSTRY SEPTIC TANK MANUFACTURER

Russell Melling Frank Dragoun, P.E. Scott Franz Patti Sanzone COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CONSUMER SOIL SOENTIST ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Paul Steinbrecher Ken Odom, Chair Roy Pence, Vice Chair Dale Holcomb I Shirley Kugler LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY !JOH S7AFF SUPPORT

Members present were:

MINUTES OF MEETING TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL

September 23, 2010

Ken Odom, Home Building Industry, Chairman Mark Cotton, Home Building Industry Frank Dragoun, Consumer Representative Scott Franz, Soil Scientist Greg Liskey, Septic Tank Manufacturer Russell Melling, County Health Department Patti Sanzone, Florida Environmental Health Association Derek Woodruff, Septic Tank Industry

Alternate members present:

Ed Cordova, Local Government Martin Guffey, Septic Tank Industry Roy Pence, Home Building Industry, Vice Chairman Oren Reedy, Soil Scientist William Sirmans, County Health Department Pamela Tucker, Real Estate Professional Ellen Vause, Septic Tank Industry

Department of Health staff present:

Gerald Briggs, Chief, Onsite Sewage Programs Marcelo Blanco, Environmental Health Program Consultant Paul Booher, Professional Engineer III Kim Duffek, Environmental Health Program Consultant Melissa Durkin, Environmental Health Program Consultant Bart Harriss, Environmental Manager Dale Holcomb, Environmental Administrator Shirley Kugler, Administrative Assistant Eberhard Roeder, Professional Engineer

Absent members and alternates:

Raymond Collins, Florida Environmental Health Association Dikran Kalaydjian, Home Building Industry Scott Johnson, P. E., Florida Engineering Society Paul Steinbrecher, Local Government Clay Tappan, Florida Engineering Society

Speakers:

Sam Averett, Averett Septic Tank Co. Carey Baker, Senator, District 20 Quentin (Bob) Beitel, Markham Woods Assn., Inc.

Fred Brummer, Orange County Commission Dominique Buhot, Greens Environmental Services John Byrd, Representing Teresa Jacobs Lee Constantine, Senator, District 22 Frankie Elliott, Orlando Regional Realtor Association Bob Himschoot, Crews Environmental Melissa Holt, Citizen Gino Ratti, Citizen Andrea Samson, Wekiva Area Homeowners Assn. Carol Saviak, Coalition for Property Rights Bill Segal, Orange County Commission David Smith, Contractor Clarence VanWaardhuizen, Sunny Pines MHP

Others present:

Interested persons including representatives from: Concerned Citizens Contractors County Health Departments Florida Onsite Wastewater Association Industry Representatives

2

Chairman Odom called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM. He greeted the panel members and welcomed the audience partiCipants. Introductions followed. Mr. Odom accepted a letter from Russell Melling in which he announced his impending retirement from state government in mid November and thus his resignation from the TRAP. Mr. Odom wished him well and thanked him for his years of service and valuable input to the TRAP. Mr. Odom proceeded with a review of the minutes from the July 15, 2010 meeting. Mr. Woodruff noted on the first page that Chris Brown was erroneously listed as being present at that meeting. Mr. Odom referred to page 9, Issue 09-17 - Site Plans and asked if language had been developed for lines 5 and 6 regarding the margin of error. Mr. Briggs relayed that changes to the Site Plans issue are pending and will be brought to the TRAP at a future meeting. Issue 10-06 - Existing Systems on Page 11 brought comments from Ms. Tucker. She felt her comments on that issue were not clearly stated regarding the language about the Voluntary Inspection form concerning liabilities and concerns with the Realtor Association. She said she was not suggesting a change to the drafted minutes but wanted to know what is happening with the form. Mr. Briggs responded that the Voluntary Inspection form will not be used because it is a different program, a more in­depth, detailed inspection. A form is being developed for the state wide evaluation that addresses the requirements of SB 550. Mr. Odom asked if the questions about Issue 10-11 -PBTS Design Standards at the previous meeting have been addressed to be presented at today's meeting. Mr. Briggs responded affirmatively. Mr. Odom also asked about the retesting of polyethylene tanks. Mr. Briggs responded that the requirement for polyethylene tanks to be retested to the current standards will be included in the next rule change which should be effective in January 2011. Review of the minutes concluded and Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Dragoun, motioned to accept the minutes with the noted comments. The panel voted their approval.

Issue 10-12 - SB 550: Five-year System Evaluation Rule Sections: 64E-6 - NEW

3

Mr. Briggs briefly explained the proposed language of this issue which implements SB 550 requiring evaluation of all onsite systems every five years and providing a grant program for low -income homeowners. He advised that the department has worked closely with the panel, industry and the county health departments in a concerted effort to stay very close to the exact words of the statute in terms of what this evaluation is supposed to do to make it the least invasive and the least cost as possible. The grant program will not become effective until January 2012. Therefore, rule language for the grant program is pending development. In the meantime a qualified owner could be granted a one-time, one year extension. Mr. Odom asked the established amount collected from fees from each inspection that will go into the grant program. Two dollars from each recording fee would go into the grant program. If the program stays on tract with what was presented to the Legislature, that two dollar fee would generate $208,000 the first year and that would double each year until the fifth year when maximum evaluations are reached. The grant program covers the evaluation and any required repair upgrade.

Mr. Briggs began on page one of the proposed language inviting comments and questions. Mr. Pence questioned the language beginning on line 10 that says 'A notice that sewer will be available within the next five years and written arrangement for payment of any utility assessments or connection fees have been made.' Mr. Briggs relayed that this language was borrowed from the language that was put in place for the Keys where availability of sewer is sought as well as arrangements to pay the assessment fees. Mr. Pence was doubtful that this premise would work outside the Keys. He thinks people will be reluctant to pay up-front for something they do not have. Mr. Franz stated that he understands the verbiage as meaning there will be a fee arrangement established rather than paying fees up-front. Mr. Briggs said department staff will talk with utility companies to assess their mechanism as to how they get a commitment from an owner once notified that they are going to connect.

Mr. Briggs continued with line by line explanation eliciting questions and comments. Mr. Pence asked if the one time extension talked about on line 16 is in addition to the one year extension that is allowed under line 8. Mr. Odom asked about line 17 and wanted to know if asking for written documentation of the previous year's federal tax return is a common practice to determine poverty level. Mr. Briggs said that a better choice may be to go with "written documentation provided by a government agency."

Mr. Briggs moved on to page 2 that deals with the implementation schedule. It is anticipated that 104,000 systems across the state will be evaluated the first year. Those notifications would be quarterly across the state in all counties under the current proposal. Notification to onsite system owners would start drawing from the Environmental Health (EH) data base records that presently comprise approximately 900,000 systems. Time is needed to build the rest of the inventory and Mr. Briggs described methods to accomplish refinement of the inventory. Line 35 deals with who can do evaluations. The statute language for SB 550 specifically outlines who can perform the evaluations - licensed septic tank contractors, environmental health professionals certified in the area of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, or licensed professional engineers. The draft rule language also includes employees under the direct supervision and control of engineers or septic tank contractors can do the evaluations providing they have successfully completed Department approved training. All people dOing evaluations, both licensed contractors, engineers and their employees must attend mandatory training. The training consists of two courses, one on the evaluation process and one on determining the wettest season water table. He clarified that those master septic tank contractors and certified EH personnel and engineers who have already taken the soils course as part of the accelerated certification training do not have to take the wettest season water

4

table course. Mr. Reedy asked if the evaluation course has been developed or is that a part of the week long training course taken to be a CEHP. It is a separate course that is being developed. Training is scheduled to begin in November. The total training for those needing both courses will be two days. Ms. Tucker was curious about why licensed state plumbers are not included. Mr. Briggs explained that plumbers are not listed in the statute language, but that they can opt to become licensed as septic tank contractors with DOH in order to do evaluations. Mr. Briggs stressed the importance of proper training for people doing the evaluations. Mr. Odom asked about discrepancies from one person to another when making the water table call. Mr. Briggs delineated the current process followed to make a final determination beginning with assessment by county health department people, headquarters' bureau staff and, if necessary, a final determination made by a NCRS state soil scientist. Mr. Franz reiterated that standardization is absolutely imperative so that every one is on the same page. Mr. Odom asked how voluntary inspection comes into play in relation to mandatory inspections. Will this class training be required to do water table calls for voluntary inspections? Mr. Briggs replied that language is not presently in the code but that he is open to doing so. Mr. Franz suggested that if done that it mirror this language.

Mr. Briggs talked about submittal of the evaluation report beginning on page 3, line 66. There will be a standard form used to submit the reports. The evaluator is responsible for submitting the report that is required to be postmarked within 10 business days of the completion of the evaluation. He also talked about specifics of electronic submission of the reports. Mr. Odom asked about the 10 day requirement to submit the completed evaluation. He feels a timeframe of 10 business days is too short to accomplish all the necessary steps. Mr. Briggs responded that 10 business days is the requirement to submit the evaluation to the department. The department will be the one to make the determination as to whether or not that evaluation indicates that a repair or replacement is required. At that point the owner will be notified and then the owner will have an additional 60 days to make application for their repair. Mr. Odom was adamant that he felt the timeframe too short citing examples of possible overlap of fees. Mr. Briggs allowed that he was not sure how to address Mr. Odom's concerns given that there are separate fees and separate processes. Mr. Franz made a cogent suggestion that when a repair is obviously needed the inspection could be submitted along with a repair application thus saving the homeowner one of the fees. Mr. Briggs said his staff will look at possible verbiage to put in place to accomplish that as well as an appropriate timeframe. Mr. Odom added that this also relates to the grant program. If application for a grant program is necessary, will that 10 day time period, with the fee for the inspection still be required? Mr. Briggs said that verbiage can be dealt with next year with development of the grant program language. New member, Mr. Mark Cotton, followed suit with Mr. Odom's comments about the short timeframe and the possible financial difficulty imposed on the homeowner. Mr. Franz said if it appears that a repair is required, there is no language that says a repair permit has to be submitted within 10 days. Mr. Cotton said the timeframe is 60 days within which a repair process must begin.

The language beginning on line 75 deals with the details of the evaluation. Mr. Briggs talked about requirements for pumping tanks. All tanks are required to be pumped at least during this initial cycle. The statute does provide that if a tank has been pumped within the last five years and there is certification of the condition and capacity of the tank then the tank does not have to be pumped again. Mr. Pence asked under what conditions would that documentation be present. Typically, a normal pump out does not include water tight evaluation. Mr. Briggs said the department is preparing to inform the disposal companies about these requirements. He added that some, but not all, of the disposal companies keep those kinds of records. At this point, pump out information will depend on the pumper's records. Mr.

5

Odom said "if you pull an inspection on a system and the tank was pumped and certified two years ago, then you don't have to certify that tank ... you just have to go out and inspect the drainfield." Affirmative. Then in three years from now do you have to go out and inspect the tank? No, the evaluation is every five years. Mr. Odom remarked that the tank evaluation will have actually gone for 7 years. Ms. Vause said a lot of contractors currently use a check sheet for their own records when pumping a system because a good percentage of pump outs reveal problems that will initiate a repair. Mr. Odom referred to line 75 and asked why the tank is pumped since each system for maintenance depends on what goes into the system. Mr. Briggs agreed on the maintenance aspect but first and foremost a priority is to determine that the tank is water tight. An accurate determination cannot be made without pumping the tank. Mr. Odom wondered if anyone has calculated the amount of sewage that will be pumped from these tanks, where it will be disposed of and the available capacities to handle the sewage. Mr. Briggs replied that one reason to phase in the process over several years is to make sure that the capacity is in place. Industry, the disposal sites and the plants will have to gear up to deal with the wastes from these evaluations.

Mr. Briggs continued on line 78 that addresses visual inspection of the tanks for cracks, leaks or corrosion, i.e. something that has impacted the tank so that it is not water tight. Poly tank deformities which restrict flow through the system or which prevent lids or manhole covers from being properly re-installed must also be documented. Mr. Briggs sought guidance for at what point does the deformation impact the functioning of the system. Mr. Odom referred to the pumping of tanks on line 76 and wanted to know if there is a form that has to be filled out for the tank certification. That is covered on the form referenced earlier in the language. Line 81 deals with exposed sewage or effluent. Line 82 through 86 talks about determination of the wettest season water table that is required by the statute. The statute requires pre-1983 systems to meet a minimum six inch separation; on or after 1983 they must meet a minimum 12 inch separation. The current requirement in the rule, in place since 1985, is 24 inches. Mr. Woodruff asked if the soil evaluation performed for this SB 550 inspection will count towards the repair permit if a repair permit is required. Mr. Briggs said that question ties in with the earlier discussion about the various permit fees and recognizes that the language needs refinement. Mr. Pence commented on the 1985 rule that requires a 24 inch water table separation. Since 1985 any system installed, has been permitted, installed and inspected by the health department attesting that it meets that water table separation. He further observed that now we will look at those same systems, permitted by the health department, and determining if the job was done right. Mr. Briggs assented but stressed that site conditions do change describing a scenario where that has happened in the Tallahassee area. Mr. Pence is concerned about the financial impact to a homeowner who had a system installed after 1985, and inspected by the health department verifying that the 24 inch separation criteria was met. What happens if the SB 550 evaluation determines that there is no 24 inch separation? Mr. Briggs noted that a lot more training on water table determinations has been done in the last 10 years. Mr. Reedy added also that a lot more has been learned about soil science since 1985. He reiterated that site conditions do change, a seasonal high water table can rise or fall based on the hydrology in the area, the morphological features can reestablish, re-express themselves. Another variation is that, unfortunately, the bottoms of drainfields do change after final inspections. He has observed this happening because of occasional illegal practice. So it is not just a matter of' looking at the health department to see if they did their job right initially. There are too many variables in the scenario. You have to evaluate a system or soils on how they exist that day. Mr. Odom conjectured about Mr. Reedy's comments about illegal practices as being where an installer has the health department perform an inspection on a system they've just installed perhaps using chambers, or multi pipe, etc. Once that inspector leaves a job, the installer could

remove a section of the drain line, lower it or do anything at that point. It is illegal but may happen on rare occasions. Mr. Pence reiterated his concerns about potential cost.

6

Mr. Briggs continued with line 87 about placing the lid back on the tank upon completion of the evaluation. If the lid is damaged it should be replaced with approved components. Any missing or damaged outlet devices or filters shall also be replaced. If the owner refuses permission to make these corrections, the evaluator's responsibility is to report that to the health department. Mr. Pence commented on the event of an owner refusing permission to make corrections. He does not think this rule addresses that point. From the audience, Mr. Sam Averett stated that the time to make these corrections is when the tank is pumped and empty. If there is no outlet filter or the outlet tee needs to be replaced then there is actually a savings to the customer in making the needed corrections when the tank is empty. Ms. Vause added further remarks to Mr. Averett's about filter and lid replacement. Ms. Tucker referred to line 92 about the outlet filter being cleaned during the pump out. She asked about older, systems that are operating correctly during evaluation but were never retrofitted for a filter. Mr. Briggs answered that there is no requirement for filters to be installed on the older systems. Ms. Tucker also suggested that the verbiage for ... "owner refuses permission" be replaced with "willing and able." Mr. Briggs said this is not an option and reminded the panel that a damaged lid is not only a health hazard but a safety hazard. Mr. Briggs stressed that work cannot be done on an owner's property without their permission. If an owner says, "get off my property" then the evaluator's obligation is to report that to the health department.

Continuing on page 4, beginning on line 95 addresses repairs and time frames. Line 101 details requirements for repair permits. Line 106 speaks to requirement of a modification permit when the issue is a separation from the wet season water table. Line 109 through 118 is about permits required to construct new systems. Mr. Odom referred to line 106 about a modification permit when the drainfield does not meet the minimum separation. When going from a repair permit to a modification permit, doesn't the modification permit require all new requirements such as property lines, setbacks, building foundations, wells, surface water, etc. He stated that this is getting back into other statutes that protect pre '72 lots and pre '83 lots. He thinks this language should be carefully thought out and compared with the statute in the event of conflicts or contradictions. Mr. Odom feels that many problems might be created by rushing through this language in order to meet the January 1, 2011 deadline. Mr. Franz thinks dealing with the setback issue should remain with the age of the house and dealt accordingly with that separation. Mt. Woodruff said everyone needs to understand that the modification requirements are far stricter than the repair requirements. Mr. Briggs agreed and said we will work on the language to make sure we don't inadvertently impose stricter standards.

Mr. Reedy asked for further clarification about the modification for the separation from the seasonal high water table. He asked if systems are pre '83, the number is 6 inches or greater and post '83 is 12 inches or greater. If a system does not meet those criteria, does it have to be brought up to the 24 inch separation? Mr. Briggs responded that if a pre 1983 system does not meet a 6 inch separation it must be brought up to 12 inches. So whatever the criteria is supposed to be that is what it has to be brought up to under the modification. Correct.

Mr. Briggs picked up again on line 119 with the review that deals with determination of the installation dates since that is a factor in the wet season water table determination.

Line 122 deals with the 60 day timeframe for obtaining construction permits after notification from the Department. Mr. Pence and Mr. Cotton asked how that relates to the other timeframes. The evaluator has 10 business days to submit the report. The Department will

review that and send out a notice. From the time the applicant gets the notice, they have 60 days to make application for their repair permit if they are required to get one. Repair permits run for 90 days and they can be extended for 90 days.

Page 5 begins explanation of disciplinary guidelines that specifically outlines the violations for the evaluators, the pumpers, and the system owners. All have responsibilities under this program. Mr. Pence asked what is a false payment statement. Mr. Briggs replied that it is a billing for something not done.

7

The panel concluded discussion about the SB 550 issue language and Mr. Odom opened the meeting for public comments. The first speaker that Mr. Odom invited to the podium was Mr. Fred Brummer, Orange County Commissioner. Mr. Brummer expressed appreciation to the panel for their service to the state. He briefly expressed his thoughts that the economic impact of this particular rule to be substantial and that people around the state cannot afford the expense. He read an email from Representative Trudy Williams, District 75. Mr. Brummer added his own concerns about 'modifications' addressed beginning on line 106 of the proposed language.

Mr. Franz commented in response to Representative Williams' email. He said the panel members were provided a copy of SB 550 and what he reads does not appear to be misrepresented by what is being proposed as her email indicates. He would like for someone to point that out to him if he is wrong. Mr. Odom said he was not sure but maybe that was misrepresented to them as Legislators or maybe they supported a bill that they did not completely understand.

Senator Lee Constantine, District 22, spoke next. He thanked the panel for their dedicated service adding that he recognizes that SB 550 is not an easy issue to resolve. Regarding the process of working through SB 550, he advised the panel to keep it simple, use common sense, and make it user friendly. He said the Legislature did not try to dot all the 'i's' and cross all the 't's' because persons in the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Protection are the experts and understand this complicated business more than the 60 day Legislators. The legislators involved were aggressive in trying to put SB 550 into play and he appealed to the panel to put together the right method to bring this process about. He believes that most folks agree this particular inspection program is necessary and is the right thing to do. He added that in listening to the questions and responses today he can see that the panel is obviously putting together something that would be doable and workable for the people of Florida. Senator Constantine invited questions. Ms. Tucker said she never thought it was his intent for existing systems to have to renovate them, pull them out of the ground, etc. if they are functioning properly to the code. She believes the separation language was intended for those systems that are not functioning, that need repair, or for new construction but the bill is not written that way. Senator Constantine responded that landmark legislation such as this always presents opportunities to go back and say that this is really not what we intended or this is a glitch. We all understand that there may be some things that were not put together properly. The key to all of this in the big picture is that this process is necessary and it is necessary as quickly as possible. It will in the long run save all Florida tax payers both health and safety concerns, as well as money, especially when looking at what EPA is conSidering. He is concerned about the rush of judgment to eliminate this as is evidenced by dent of letters and questions asking 'how are we going to fix this or why should we do this'. Senator Constantine was emphatic that it is called personal responsibility as to why a septic tank needs to be inspected, needs to be fixed if it is not working. He does not think, as Ms. Tucker said, that it was ever the intent to haul out the whole septic tank for replacement if the problem was fixable.

Mr. adorn asked Senator Constantine about his reference to EPA. He wondered if part of this bill language was driven by some upcoming EPA mandates for water quality standards.

8

Senator Constantine responded that SB 550 is multi-faceted and this inspection portion is actually a small part of the whole bill. He reflected on a settlement that the EPA had done on a law suit concerning the numeric standards of Florida waters that could put a potential large expense on every household in the state of Florida as well as a strong damper on our economy. The Senate Committee considered a number of ideas and concepts to mitigate what the EPA may try to do. Some business groups have estimated that the EPA standards could potentially cost $700 a household whether using a sewer, septic tank or whatever. He said there was universal agreement among the affected agencies, business groups, and environmental groups to support the concept of five year inspections. Mr. Franz commented about keeping the process user friendly and ways DOH can save the homeowners money. He is in favor of the separation language but to be more user friendly, if a tank is structurally sound and the system is functioning why force that homeowner to replace the drainfield and bring it up to meeting the 12 or 24 inch separation. There is a difference between the system functioning mechanically and the system working biologically, e.g. the soil providing treatment. Mr. Odom commented on the state-level $30 fee and asked if the counties have the ability to tack on to that fee. This is a state inspection fee and other than the DOH and the county working together on delegation an additional county fee is not anticipated. Senator Constantine talked more about fees, the timetable for the grant program and the implementation of the process. Mr. Dragoun wanted to know if the 5 year inspection program will satisfy the EPA. Senator Constantine could not guarantee that but in working with DOH, DOA, DEP, and business representatives from communities, cities, counties and environmental groups; found that they collectively feel that this is the best answer.

Senator Carey Baker spoke next. Anticipating the strong possibility of a glitch bill in the 2011 Legislature, he recommended assimilating a list of suggestion and concerns, both statutory and regulatory, to DOH. If these issues of concern are not addresses, the public backlash could jeopardize the program in its entirety. He stressed that a program is needed that works for everybody. Mr. Woodruff said he thinks the five year inspection program is a great idea but recognizes the many challenges to work through. Senator Baker's response, "So, let's fix them and make this a successful program that we can all be proud of that can work for all Floridians. Mr. Odom asked Senator Baker's opinion of waiting until June 1, 2011, after the Legislative meets again for the DOH to send out the notifications. He noted that the timeframe extends to 2016 to fully implement the program. Senator Baker replied DOH is required to follow whatever the statute sets forth. He thinks some changes are assured; the Department needs to be aware of that and make accommodations where possible. Mr. Odom reiterated that the panel's utmost concern is public health but they also must consider the economical impact of forcing these inspections until after the Legislature meets to see what changes are made. He encourages finding a way to allay financial burden on folks especially if there is a chance the law will be changed. Mr. Franz concurred with those assessments. Mr. adorn said the statute says the program is to be administered by January 1, 2011; but he interprets that as not necessarily meaning the inspections have to start on that date. A full implementation of the program is to be done by 2016. Mr. Briggs said he wanted to clarify again that if the schedule is maintained, the rule would go into effect in January 2011. DOH will send out the first round of notifications to homeowners with newer systems giving 60 days notice. He does not anticipate a lot of problems in the first round. The 2011 Legislative will have started before determinations have to be made about those systems. Senator Constantine interjected that the intention was to have something in place as soon as possible knowing that the EPA was going to be initiate a process over the next six-months. How it works, whether notifications are sent in January or three months down the road is up to you all as how you implement it. He

9

talked about the possible glitch bill and indicated that it is incumbent upon the agencies and the TRAP to present recommendations to the Legislature so that problems and concerns can be fixed in a glitch bill. Senator Baker asked if he understood correctly that DOH could go ahead by rule and postpone these inspections or start a process that may notify of inspections but not have the first inspections begin until next Mayor June. Senator Constantine said that the process would be in place by January and therefore the process would decide how long notification for inspection is given. So you could give 60 days or 90 days, that would be part of the implementation process. He said, "we never said you have to have the first inspection on January 1, what we said is that the process needed to be in place to implement it in January." Senator Baker noted that both he and Senator Constantine are term limited and will not be in the 2011 Legislature.

Mr. John Byrd spoke on behalf of Teresa Jacobs who is a mayoral candidate for Orange County. He expressed appreciation to the panel for their continued outstanding work. A concern of theirs is the verification of the evaluation process. He said Ms. Jacobs feels very strongly the need to do pump outs, the need for inspections, and the need to protect the environment. However, we should not do something that will have a crippling effect on homeowners and businesses that are just trying to survive. He summed up by urging to act rationally and not push through something that has a crippling effect on homeowners and businesses.

Mr. Bob Himschoot directed his comments to the legislative intent of SB 550 that is to administer an evaluation program, ensure operational condition and identify failures that would require permits such as sewage on the ground, sewage backing up in the house and sewage that may be contaminating a potable well on the property. He made a number of suggestions. He referred to line 34 and suggested instead of doing notifications chronologically to do them geographically in watershed basins. He would like to see that specifically addressed. In line 38, he is a strong proponent in the fact that we need to have good water quality, that we need to use inspection and maintenance programs to evaluate the systems but he does not agree that an evaluator is needed to determine a water table separation. Therefore, under line 38 the language discussing water table issues could be eliminated. He referred to line 82 (i) through 86 about the evaluator determining the wettest season water table. He thinks a costly portion of the inspection could be eliminated by just doing the pump out and evaluation of the drainfield without doing a wet season water table determination. The thing that disturbs him most about determining the wet season water table is that there are differences between an evaluator and what a soil scientist and others might determine to be the wet season water table. If the wet season water table is miscalled and a modification is required, that opens up the spectrum of setbacks and if a system has been in existence for 10, 12, 15 years because of other various reasons the site may have changed from when a permit was first pulled. He said system failures described earlier should be eliminated from this particular rule making process. He advocates moving forward with the septic tank evaluation, the drainfield evaluation and meeting some of the EPA guidelines in Models 1-5. He observed that Senator Constantine closely followed one of the EPA guidelines when drafting the language in SB 550. Potential EPA guidelines have been part of the overwhelming umbrella used to help draft language to mange treating wastewater from both the de-centralized side and the central sewer. Mr. Odom asked Mr. Himschoot to send him those concerns and suggestions.

Ms. Carol Saviak, Executive Director of the Coalition for Property Rights based in Orlando asked the TRAP to put extraordinary thought in protecting the homeowners from onerous financial burdens. She expressed suspicion of the science behind this. She does not

10

understand the huge push and urgency to push this on property owners in the middle of one of the worst recessions in Florida.

Ms. Andrea Samson, Wekiva Area Homeowners Association, claims that this rule not only defies logic but it defies legal and rulemaking precedent directing further derogatory comments to the DOH about the proposed language. She talked about seven Counties, Calhoun, Jackson, Washington, Holmes, Liberty, Santa Rosa and Walton that have passed resolutions asking for repeal or modification of SB 550 because of the septic system issue. She maintains that the separation issue needs to be removed from this bill further stating that it was not intended to be there and that the precedent is there to support a challenge.

Mr. Bill Segal, Orange County Commission for District 5 said he understands the multi­faceted issues being addressed. He finds that moving ahead with this process would be a terrible move on behalf of the state of Florida causing a burden for people to shoulder the expenses required. He cautioned to tread lightly and proceed with caution.

Mr. Dominic Buhot, Greens Environmental Services, referenced a letter from Representative Trudy Williams stating that she is in line with what is being discussed; she is in line with the intent that was not to replace any working system. He also talked about the expense issues indicating his opinion to wait until after the next legislative session to proceed with this process.

Ms. Melissa Holt described herself as a septic tank homeowner, unemployed and a senior citizen. The gist of her comments was her inability to pay for any fees, repairs or upgrades. She is a candidate for the grant program and would willingly complete application immediately.

Mr. Quinton Beitel acknowledged that others have already voiced most of his concerns, but that he needed clarification about the timeframe for the DOH to respond after these inspections. He also suggested holding up on the inspection process.

Mr. Timothy McKinney, Executive Vice President, United Global Outreach which is a humanitarian aid organization that is heavily invested in helping and working with a Community in East Orange County. He referred to communities in East Orange County that would be devastated by having to either retrofit or replace existing septic tanks. He doubts the money provided in the grant program would cover the applicants from those communities let alone the whole state of Florida. He wanted to know what happens if the grant money runs out. He also wanted to know if the grant criteria would be based on a sliding scale.

Mr. Gino Ratti, an Orange County homeowner, said though once angry with the TRAP a few years ago that he has subsequently found out the TRAP has been a voice of reason. He talked about the highest concentrations of nitrogen are around the sewer plants. He also talked about the Prohibition of Ex Post Facto Laws which means, in common terminology, that you cannot make something illegal after it is already done. His opinion is that is exactly what is being considered with this process. He expounded further about the septic tank being the whipping boy for water pollution, drainage wells, waste generated by animals on mega farms, and sewer systems. He wonders why septic tanks get all the attention.

Mr. Clarence VanWaardhuizen said that he and his wife own the Sunny Pines Mobile Homes Park. They provide living facilities for senior citizens and that most cannot afford large expense. They have a number of concerns because the park has 30 septic tanks. He asked

11

several questions about probing the soil, high nitrates and if the tank needs to be opened wondering if there will be a shotgun effect by saying that every tank has to be opened and inspected. Chances are a lot of the old systems are working well. He talked about the potential large expense created by the inspection process and urged the panel to delay this as long as possible considering the current poor economy.

Mr. David Smith introduced himself saying that he is a contractor in Central Florida. He said that there was no water separation in 1980. Then the separation went to 6, then 12, then 24 inches, 36 inches and back to 6 inches. Does anyone know what it will be next year or five years from now? He spoke of homeowners being made to replace a septic system because a county inspector from DOH made a ruling on a water separation only to find out two years later they changed it.

Ms. Frankie Elliot, Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the Orlando Regional Realtors Association referred to line 7 on page one of the proposed language and said she thinks the notification to owners about an impending evaluation should be extended from 60 to 90 days. She referred to line 13 and recommended having a utility company rather than property owner sending written notification to the Department when sewer connection is completed. She then referred to Line 16 about requesting a one time, one year extension and said she thinks that may actually need to be more than once. On page 3 starting with Line 73 she expressed that an owner should be notified up-front what the cost will be. She questioned Line 75 about documentation of a pump out in the last five years and wondered if there is a provision that a new system, less than five years old, should also be required to be pumped out. Language needs clarification. She continued on Line 87 that speaks to replacement of parts on some systems. She feels there should be provisions and a time period of when that has to be done and whether or not there will be another inspection fee. She also recommended on page 4 about the separation table that a second opinion should be allowed especially if the finding is inconclusive. She also said that there should be inclusion of an appeal process.

Mr. Odom called for an hour lunch break beginning at 12:10 PM.

The meeting resumed at 1 :20 PM. with comments and opinions expressed by the panel members about S8 550. Oren Reedy spoke about the controversy expressed today over the point of separation from the water table. He is of the opinion that portion of the language should not be completely removed from the bill but maybe used as a determining factor in replacing the system. It should remain a part of the inspection because it provides more data to draw from down the road when the system possibly goes into failure.

Mr. Liskey stated his thoughts of the importance of the TRAP moving to pass this issue today. He recognizes the confusion about certain aspects of the bill. He suggested that DOH consider taking out the seasonal high water issue completely and let the Legislature scrutinize the language further in the anticipated Glitch Legislation. Mr. Odom said the DOH is under a mandate by statute with the water table separation. The TRAP can make the recommendation but Mr. Odom does not think they can remove the language. Mr. Liskey said he was not going to get into whether or not it is mandated but there is obvious confusion about the interpretation of that language. He thinks it would be an injustice to the state of Florida not to move forward with this bill in some capacity with everything else except the separation part because there is the possibility that the whole thing could be repealed. This bill is good for the state of Florida, it is good for the environment and it is good for the consumer. He reiterated that he thinks the TRAP should move forward with the issue but to wait on the seasonal high water table until

12

there is further direction from the Legislature. He further stated that we should not hold this up until the Legislature meets.

Mr. Franz concurred with Mr. Liskey's comments. He expressed reservations and concern about the ability for certain individuals to make accurate assessments about any issues concerning soils. Mr. Briggs understands Mr. Franz's concern about the level of training but reminded the panel of the situation with employees of engineers brought about by the statute change last year. There are no qualifications for them except for the fact that they have to be under the supervision of the engineer and they have to complete the soils course. The intent with this language was to ensure that these people were getting at least that level of training. Mr. Briggs said that in going back to Mr. Odom's comment, we do not get to pick and choose which parts of this law we implement. The Department is an executive agency, rule making is not an option; it is an obligation under the law. We cannot eliminate the water table issue presently in the rule. It is a clear requirement of the statute. He does not know any other way to interpret, " ... the system shall meet a minimum a minimum 6 inch separation if they were installed prior to 1983."

Mr. Pence said he appreciates and respects Mr. Briggs evaluation and opinion of that language, but maintains that was not the intention based on what was heard from the legislators who passed this bill and what was received in writing since passage of the bill. He said if you ask 1 0 different people to interpret the language you will get 1 0 different answers. He said this bill requires that beginning January 1, 2011 the Department shall administer an Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System evaluation program. It does not say in what detail the program has to go through at a certain point in time, but it does say that it has to be fully implemented statewide by 2016. He thinks the wise approach is to implement this in stages and not go forward with the soil evaluations and the water table evaluations up front. He said we need an inspection program and he recognizes the very big job for the Department but he does not see how it can be implemented by January 1, 2011. He understands that the Department has a heavy load on their shoulders and that they are trying to do what is right but he thinks there is leeway to use judgment in the process of implementing this up until 2016.

Ms. Vause responded to Mr. Franz's comments about incorrect calls about soil that a contractor might make. She said they are professionals and that they work hard to do a professional job and take the necessary training. She is confident that with correct training those contractors can do the job for the consumer. Her second comment was in agreement with Mr. Liskey and Mr. Pence that we need to tread carefully but we also need to move ahead with this very important issue. She suggested going ahead with the rule making process acknowledging Mr. Briggs statement that they cannot take out the seasonal high water table separation. She agrees with Mr. Reedy that it is a necessary component in evaluating a system in order to inventory and get an idea of what is out there.

Mr. Woodruff shared the comments made by Mr. Pence and Ms. Vause about delaying, if possible, the soils part until 2016. He remarked that a lot of the changes in 64E are reflecting what has come from SB 550 and he wonders what happens if some portions get repealed in the next legislative session. Do we still work under the 64E code even though SB 550 might be changed? Mr. Briggs said the statute would override the rule.

Mr. Dragoun said since the water table issue appears to be a critical point, is there any way the homeowner could appeal that decision about the depth of the water table? Mr. Briggs said that all of this process is in 381 under the variance program. Therefore, a homeowner could for reasons of hardship and other factors request a variance to this rule.

13

Mr. Pence expressed the importance of keeping in mind the scale of what is being discussed, i.e. variances, and people getting financial relief. He then motioned for a small part of this rule that addresses the soils testing/water table evaluation portion be implemented in January 1, 2012. Mr. Franz called the second. Mr. Liskey suggested adding to Mr. Pence's motion ... 'or as directed by the Legislature.' Mr. Pence and Mr. Franz added comments about 6 hours of training not being enough. Delaying the soils testing part until 2012 would also give time for contractors to attend the necessary training. Debate continued with similar opinions expressed about the water table issue. Mr. Odom observed from what was heard from the Legislators who spoke today, they did not seem to think that the inspections had to start before June 1. The program can be administered to have the rules in place and not do anything about notifying homeowners until after June 1. Ms. Tucker asked for clarification of Mr. Pence's motion. She has listened closely to everything said today and she interprets the remarks made by Senator Constantine and Senator Baker that the intention was not to have the seasonal water table language in the way it is interpreted by the Department. She does not think that now is the time to pass this. Ms. Sanzone made salient remarks in agreement with Ms. Vause's comments but also referred to specific language on page 109 of the Law that addresses evaluation of the water table issue that does not allow any way of circumventing the intent of the language. The written language is what needs to be considered. Bantering of the interpretation of the language and the possibility of delaying parts of the implementation continued. Mr. Dragoun motioned to amend Mr. Pence's motion from implementation to begin after the Legislative session instead of January 1, 2010. Mr. Odom's opinion was that it would be better to hold off on inspections until June 1, 2011, you can implement the program, have the rule in place but don't start the notifications until June 1 or start the notifications 2 months prior to end of session. He expressed certainty that there will be a change. Implement the program but wait until June 1 to send out notices. Mr. Pence's motion failed. Mr. Dragoun then motioned to implement the rule making but to delay inspections until June 1 after the Legislature meets. Ms. Sanzone called the second. The motion carried with 6 assenting votes and 3 votes against.

Issue 10-6 - Existing Systems Rule Sections: 64E-6.001

Mr. Holcomb explained that the proposed language for this issue essentially simplifies the section of the rule that deals with existing systems, modifications, etc., and it incorporates the water table standards that come from SB 550. Mr. Odom asked about the language on page 1, line 13 of the Underline/Overstrike version about connection to sewage. Mr. Briggs explained that striking that language doesn't change any of the rule language, that it is a statutory requirement that if sewer is available you have to connect to it. Mr. Odom also asked about the applicant's responsibility to provide documentation of an eXisting system approval citing examples of reasons for not being able to provide that documentation. Mr. Briggs said it has always been the applicant's requirement to prove that their system was permitted for what they say it is permitted for. Mr. Briggs continued with explanation of the proposed language followed with more comments and questions. A motion was called by Mr. Liskey to approve the issue. Mr. Melling seconded the motions. The motion carried.

Issue 10-17 - Fees Rule Sections: 64E-6.030

Mr. Briggs explained that this issue amends the fee structure to reflect services provided by county health departments. The proposed changes provide a fee for mean annual flood line determination, five year evaluation reporting, excavation inspections, and additional soil profiles.

14

Comments and questions followed with opinions expressed about the fee amounts. Mr. Briggs reminded the panel that the current fee structure covers only about 60 percent of the costs to the department to do this work. Mr. Franz said if these services were done by private industry, the expense would be much greater. Ms. Melissa Holt commented again about the financial burden all these different fees places on homeowners having septic tanks. Mr. Franz said to remember that we are not talking about what was discussed previously. This is about a requirement that is already in place, mean annual flood line. Mr. Franz delineated specific reasons for requiring determination of mean annual flood line because there are setback requirements to bodies of surface water. Debate continued with little resolution. Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Franz, motioned to table the issue for further consideration. The motion carried.

Issue 10-19 - Repair Standards Rule Sections: 64E-6.015

Mr. Holcomb explained the issue that simplifies repair standards, eliminates out-dated requirements and complies with statutory requirements. He began a line by line critique of the proposed language. Mr. Odom referred to line 17 where the verbiage talks about " ... within the setbacks of Table V ... "and said, "Doesn't that change in Issue 1 0-1 0 of this packet and it adds Table V plus 25 feet?" Mr. Holcomb said that needs to be dovetailed together on whether it is Table V or Table V plus 25 feet. Mr. Odom also questioned line 20,21 about "A signed tank certification from a permitted septage disposal service ... " and said, "Didn't we change that to where a registered or master contractor can sign it?" Mr. Holcomb acknowledged that Mr. Odom was right and that he would see to that correction. Ms. Vause asked about lines 56 about the removal of existing drainfields. Why can't it be disconnected if there is room for a new drainfield? Mr. Odom remarked about lines 73,74, and 75. Ms. Sanzone noted a grammatical correction to line 2. Mr. Odom asked about Line 315 (g) resulting in the decision to remove (g). Mr. Franz motioned to table then corrected himself by saying he actually meant the motion to pass the issue providing the revisions discussed are made. The revised language is then to be sent to the Variance Committee for their review and then brought back to the TRAP. Mr. Woodruff called the second. Mr. Holcomb delineated the revisions to be made. The motion carried.

Ms. Vause noted the number of issues remaining on the agenda still to be reviewed. The possibility of a conference call was mentioned but left undetermined. The panel recognized the urgency of another face to face meeting to be held in late October. The meeting place, exact date and time were left pending. The meeting adjourned at 3:10 PM.

TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

ADVISORY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AUTHORITY: SECTION 381.0068, FLORIDA STATUTES

TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL (TRAP) MEETING

DATE: TIME:

Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:00 A.M.

PLACE: Orlando Airport Marriott 7499 Augusta National Drive Orlando, Florida 32822 407 -851-9000

THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

AGENDA

1. Introductions

2. Review minutes of last meeting

3. Implementation of SB 550 10-12 SB 550: Five-year System Evaluation 10-06 Existing Systems 10-17 Fees 10-19 Repair Standards

4. Old Business 07 -23 Performance-Based Systems-Standards 08-15 Bedroom Definition 09-01 Non-Transient Recreational Vehicle Space Flow 09-02 Metered Water Use Records 10-02 Soil Replacement for Drip Systems 10-05 Part II (Florida Keys) SB 550, Update standards 10-09 L TAR and Alternative Drainfield Geometry for PBTS 10-10 Site Plans, Mounds 10-11 PBTS design standards

5. New Business 10-04 Sand lined trenches 10-13 Portable Restroom and Holding Tank Permitting 10-14 Setback from DEP water Main 10-16 Flow Calculation - Multi-purpose rooms 10-18 Repair Permit Fees

6. Public Comment

Scott Johnson, P.E. Tony Macaluso Derek Woodruff Greg Liskey PROFESSIONAL EN(i[NEERS REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY SEPTIC TANK INDUSTRY SEPTIC TANK MANUFACTURER

Russell Melling Frank Dragoun, P.E. Scott Franz Patti Sanzone COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CONSUMER SOIL SOENTIST ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Paul Steinbrecher Ken Odom, Chair Roy Pence, Vice Chair Dale Holcomb I Shirley Kugler LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY !JOH S7AFF SUPPORT

MINUTES OF MEETING TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL (TRAP)

July 15, 2010

Members present were:

Robert Harper III, Florida Home Building Industry, Chairman Frank Dragoun, Consumer Representative Scott Franz, Soil Scientist Scott Johnson, P.E., Florida Engineering Society Greg Liskey, Septic Tank Manufacturer Russell Melling, County Health Department Ken Odom, Home Building Industry Patti Sanzone, Florida Environmental Health Association Derek Woodruff, Septic Tank Industry

Alternate members present:

Chris Brown, Septic Tank Industry Ed Cordova, Local Government Martin Guffey, Septic Tank Industry Roy Pence, Home Building Industry Oren Reedy, Soil Scientist William Sirmans, County Health Department Clay Tappan, Florida Engineering Society Pamela Tucker, Real Estate Professional Ellen Vause, Septic Tank Manufacturer

Department of Health staff present:

Gerald Briggs, Chief, Onsite Sewage Programs Marcelo Blanco, Environmental Health Program Consultant Paul Booher, P.E., Professional Engineer III Kim Duffek, Environmental Health Program Consultant Bart, Harriss, Environmental Manager Shirley Kugler, Administrative Assistant Eberhard Roeder, Professional Engineer III Lucy Schneider, Attorney

Absent members and Alternates:

Raymond Collins, Florida Environmental Health Association Dikran Kalaydjian, Home Building Industry Paul Steinbrecher, Local Government

Speakers:

Sam Averett, Averett Septic Tank Co. Jason Churchill, Orenco Systems, Inc. Quentin (Bob) Beitel, Markham Woods Assn., Inc.

Gary S. Duren, Code Compliance, Inc. Highland Tank & Mfg. Co. Doug Everson, Homeowner/PTI, Inc. Keith Hetrick, Florida Home Builders Association Bob Himschoot, Crews Environmental Cory Mong, Economy Septic, Inc. Maria Pecoraro, for State Representative Bryan Nelsen

2

Chairman Harper called the meeting to order at 9: 1 0 AM. Following welcoming remarks and introductions Mr. Harper observed that almost all of the panel members were present with only three absentees. He expressed gratitude to the panel for their past and present attendance and dedication to the TRAP.

Mr. Harper called David Carter forward to receive recognition for his years of service with the Research Review and Advisory Committee (RRAC) noting also his valuable in tandem service to the TRAP when needed. Mr. Briggs also commended Mr. Carter as he presented him with a plaque for his unwavering commitment to the RRAC through the 14 years of serving as the RRAC's chairman during which he shepherded the committee through many difficult issues.

Mr. Harper then announced his resignation as member and Chairman of the TRAP. Like Mr. Carter's tenure with the RRAC, Mr. Harper shares a long, dedicated history with the TRAP. He was elected chairman during the first meeting of the Technical Review and Advisory Panel in August 1996, and was subsequently re-elected chairman thereafter. Mr. Harper said that leading the TRAP has been an exciting venture as he recalled past efforts and accomplishments. Mr. Briggs then stepped forward, on behalf of the Department and the Panel, to present Mr. Harper with a plaque for his commitment and loyalty to the TRAP. Mr. Briggs commented that the years of service were omitted on the plaque because of the general disbelief that Mr. Harper would actually go through with his intentions to resign. Mr. Briggs expressed appreciation to Mr. Harper for being an outstanding chairman, crediting his strong leadership as being instrumental in building strong consensus and achievements.

Mr. Harper deferred election of a new chairman and vice-chairman to the end of the meeting. The minutes of the January meeting were opened for review and comment. During the page by page critique, Mr. Johnson asked for a correction to be made to page 5 under Issue 09-07 - Low Pressure Design. The sentence in question will be stricken from the minutes. Also on pages 4 and 5, regarding Issue 08-15 - Bedroom Definition, Mr. Briggs said that an email update was sent to the Chair of the Building Commission work group explaining the outcome of that issue. There were no further questions or corrections to the minutes. Mr. Odom, seconded by Mr. Johnson, motioned to approve the minutes with the one noted correction. The motion carried.

Mr. Briggs talked about the Legislature's provision of an additional two million dollars in funding to continue the passive nitrogen study. Dr. Roeder provided a brief update of the passive nitrogen study that encompasses four areas, technology development that is the passive nitrogen reduction study - phase II, another is field testing of these technologies at home sites, the third is the movement of nitrogen in soil in shallow ground water and the fourth is the modeling of these processes of nitrogen in soil and shallow ground water. He talked further about a site visit to a test facility provided by Hazen and Sawyer to view progress being made. This recent funding provides certainty of moving forward with those various tasks.

Mr. Briggs led a lengthy discussion about SB 550 which directs the Department of Health to create and administer a statewide 5-year cycle septic tank evaluation program. Mr. Harper found the way that SB 550 was put together interesting. Mr. Briggs said our thoughts along with those

expressed by FOWA throughout the legislative process are that these evaluations while making the required determinations should be kept as low cost and the least invasive as possible. This evaluation process is fairly high level, looking at some very key things. We want to very narrowly define what those things are and what constitutes the pass or fail standard.

3

Mr. Pence asked if the rule making for this new law is being addressed today. Mr. Briggs responded that this is the start of the rule making process. The first draft of the proposed language and the proposed form follow discussion of the SB 550 language in today's agenda package. Mr. Harper noted that part of SB 550 speaks to the Florida Keys, Monroe County. Mr. Briggs said SB 550 addresses significant changes to the Keys that are also addressed in Issue 10-05. The Keys have been under a mandate to upgrade their sewers and their onsite systems by July 2010, this year. This legislation extends that deadline. He said great progress is being made in the Keys, particularly in the city of Marathon and the Key Largo areas in their sewering projects. The primary issue is funding. This bill extends time to meet requirements. Mr. Briggs noted, too, that there are changes in regard to the interim standard for onsite systems that was in place until July 2010. Homeowners in a sewered area were allowed to put in an aerobic treatment unit instead of a performance based nutrient reduction system, but that interim standard expired on July 1, 2010. The mandatory date for onsite systems in the Keys to be performance based, nitrogen reduction and phosphorous reduction systems is now December of 2015. He further commented on the amazing fact that there will probably be less than a thousand onsite systems in the Keys when the sewering projects are completed.

Mr. Harper commented on areas of the language of SB 550. He noted on page 108 of 171 beginning on line 3123 that it appears that language was skipped from (2) through (4) picking up again with (5) Evaluation and Assessment. He surmised the skipped language was because there were no changes in that part of the law. Mr. Harper also asked about the expected prohibition of land application of septage by January 1, 2016 addressed beginning on line 3259 of page 113 of 171. Mr. Briggs said there are more and more restrictions on land application that holds true for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as well. However, land application under DEP standards has not been prohibited.

Review of SB 550 concluded and Mr. Briggs moved forward to Issue 10-12.

Issue 10-12 - SB 550: Five Year System Evaluation Rule Sections: 64E-6.0NEW

This issue presents the first draft of the proposed language that addresses the 5-year evaluation program. Mr. Briggs began with a page by page review of the language addressing comments and questions as the review progressed. Mr. Harper questioned the explanation for Possible Financial Impacts: on the cover page of the issue. He did not agree with the statement, 'None for homeowners who have been maintaining their system.' He proposed removing the word 'none' or using a different word such as 'minimal'.

The first part of the language speaks to the general provision of the statute in terms of assessing fundamental operational conditions to identify any failures. Mr. Harper noted that the language does not say 'pump out', it says 'evaluate'. Mr. Briggs said that the statute talks about 'pump out', but the language says that evaluation can be done to determine if a pump out is needed. Mr. Harper wanted the language to be clear that it is an evaluation and not necessarily a mandatory pump out.

4

The second paragraph is about notification requirements to owners at least 60 days prior to the deadline for the system evaluation, required by statute, to have their system evaluated. Mr. Briggs noted that the statute also requires implementation of the program by January 2011. He said details of the implementation are still being worked on. It will take time for department and industry staff to be able to handle the full load of this. Mr. Briggs said the one fairly firm target number for the first year would be 104,000 systems. That number of systems would be added each year and by the fifth year there would be approximately 520,000 systems that would be the recurring number thereafter. At that point, the program would be up to full strength and fully manned to handle the ongoing evaluation program. Mr. Odom referred to lines 5 through 12 and asked about fines; in particular, the language that says 'the department may impose a fine of up to $500 for failure to comply'. Mr. Briggs replied that there is the general administrative fine authority for the Department in Chapter 381 that is $500 per day per violation. The intention here is to be very up-front that there are penalties for not complying with the program. An initial notification would be sent, followed with a second notification. If there is no reply, then a letter of warning of non-compliance would follow. At that point, if that is ignored, we would need to move into the enforcement mode. Mr. Johnson asked if the notices will be issued through the county health departments noting the obvious expectation of fees and forms to be filled out by the appropriate inspection entity. He recognized that the counties vary in their range of fees. Mr. Briggs responded that he fee will be a state level fee, collected at the county level. Mr. Hetrick asked for clarification about line 11 that says '$500 fine for failure to comply with these provisions'. Mr. Briggs explained the sequence of potential fines.

The verbiage on lines 13 through 16 speaks about implementation and the obvious need to build an inventory throughout the state. The thought is to begin notification using the systems that are currently in the Environmental Health data base that are at the 5 year point and work backward. Mr. Harper asked about the source of the funding. Mr. Briggs said funding will eventually come from the fees but at the moment, there is no additional budget or staffing provided to begin this year. Mr. Cordova referred to line 15, 'Subsequent notification shall be to owners of developed property for which the Department has no record of central sewer connection'. He cited an example of problems in Northeast Florida of working through records in Duval County to find out homeowners who have electrical accounts but do not have sewer accounts. There are many people who legitimately do not have a sewer account such as a property being a parking lot that has lights but no sewer facilities. He wondered if the Department recognizes the complexity of accomplishing this task. Ms. Tucker commented about the record keeping process and how far back records are available. Mr. Briggs said the current data base goes back to 1992-93. Once entered, the data base becomes the main record. Paper records on many of the older systems may be non existent.

Mr. Briggs said lines 17 through 20 addresses who are allowed to do the evaluations, i.e. registered septic tank contractors, professional engineers, and certified environmental health professionals. All those people authorized to do the evaluations must attend a course on the requirements involved in performing the evaluations. Ms. Vause asked if employees who install septic tanks and do pump outs working under the person licensed to do evaluations are also allowed to do evaluations. Mr. Briggs responded that they are not allowed to perform evaluations. Ms. Vause sees this as being a problem. Mr. Briggs agreed that this bears looking at and may require a statutory fix.

Another issue was the determination of a surface water boundary. Mr. Harper said a potential flaw here is that persons identified to do evaluations are stated in the law referencing line 3176 of SB 550. He said that surface water is identified both in Chapter 381 and 64E. His opinion is that this should be clearly noted in the language drawing the example of confusion that might

5

occur about what is defined as a swale, surface water, etc. which are defined both in the rule and the law. The evaluator must be qualified to identify what those surface waters are. Mr. Harper said that two people may be needed in certain areas that include wetlands or surface water. He further said that some other areas on the form may need to have a definition or a reference to the law or to the rule because of potential confusion if not clearly defined. Mr. Briggs said to keep in mind that the evaluation form will be part of the rule. The terms stated on the form are in relation to statute language. Mr. Harper said that fact should be noted on the evaluation sheet so that people know they have an available reference. Mr. Pence commented further about the restrictive, specific statutory language of who can do the evaluations leading to more discussion involving Ms. Vause, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Franz, Mr. Reedy, Mr. Melling and Ms. Groover.

Mr. Bob Himschoot, speaking from the audience, stated his interpretation of this legislation is basically meant to verify septic tank integrity noting that septic tanks can deform or deteriorate. He also talked about causes for drainfield failure. He said that we have to assume that the two and a half million existing systems have already gone through the permitting process and thinks too much time is being spent trying to 'recreate the wheel'.

Former TRAP member, Gerald Prescott, asked questions about non surface water. He sought to verify that this is not counted as a mean annual flood line but rather looking at the current observed measurement to observed water. Mr. Briggs responded that boundary is looked at which is the mean annual flood line and the mean high water line. Discussion continued about possible situations where an evaluation finding results in a system having to be moved because of a too close proximity to a body of water. Mr. Harper reiterated his thoughts of having to use more than one evaluator in such situations. Ms. Vause commented that she senses a general feeling of 'we are going too far'. She agreed with Mr. Himschoot about assuming that these systems have met pre-determined permitting criteria. What is done with this inspection program is double checking or making a visual inspection of those things. She described her procedure when doing a pump out; the first step being to pull up a GS map, find the property ID number, map it, soil map it and look at the satellite map to see if there are any water features, etc. In doing those things, she has three fourths of the information asked for on the form. Her opinion of this legislation is to have a tool to look at a piece of property with issues to determine if the septic system needs to be upgraded. She does not think the evaluator is asked to make all those determinations, but rather to score the system from good to bad. She thinks that perhaps too much is being put in this inspection. Mr. Odom pointed out a statement close to the bottom of the form that says the system is not being evaluated to meet precise code compliance. Mr. Briggs said that Ms. Vause makes a very good pOint to keep in mind. He talked about a grant program that is part of this legislation that does not come into effect for another year. Information gathered from this form will also help to make a straight forward determination that will allow us to handle grant applications when we get to that program. In doing so those people who are eligible for grants have a better understanding of grant requirements. In addition to their income, two things looked at are severity of the failure and the relative environmental impact. Mr. Averett asked if a simple change of one word could be made on the form under 'surface water' to 'surface water appears.' Mr. Johnson said he strongly favors the overall rule. He thinks the design and verbiage on the form is a good start but needs some revision to simplify its use as pointed out in this discussion. Regarding forms, Mr. Himschoot referred to Issue 10-06 - Existing Systems, specifically speaking about a voluntary system inspection report that many contractors have used, with some adaptations, for a number of years. That form provides opportunity to inventory the existing systems in a systematic manner that points out highlights of problem areas. He suggested that the panel may want to reference that form.

Mr. Briggs continued on page 1, line 21 with review of the proposed language that talks about the submission of the report within 5 business days. He pointed out that electronic submission is allowed.

6

The language beginning on lines 28 through 35 deals with pump out requirements that allows the evaluator to determine if a pump out is required. Mr. Jason Churchill affiliated with Orenco Systems commented about line 29 that says ... Tanks shall be pumped out if either layer is within 8 inches of the bottom of the outlet filter' ... and spoke of a problem for some effluent filter designs. He suggested that the Department of Health may want to consider working with manufacturers to develop a better criterion based on inches from intake or on the percentage of solids in the tank. Discussion followed about the need for mandatory pump outs, at least during the first evaluation.

Continuing the review, the proposed language on lines 36 through 40 speaks about what to do about broken or missing septic tank lids.

The language beginning on line 41 is about determining when a repair is required. The Department would make that determination based on the documentation submitted.

The language beginning on 44 through 60 delineates when a repair permit shall be required. Mr. Odom referred to line 46 and asked Mr. Briggs to describe a visible failure. Mr. Briggs acknowledged more detailed language probably needs to be developed describing visible failure.

Continuing review of the proposed language, Mr. Briggs said lines 61 through 68 speak to the separation from the wettest season water table. He reiterated that language is spelled out in the statute. Mr. Odom referred to line 64 about systems installed after 1983 and posed the question about a documentation showing that the health department permitted and approved a system, but now that system does not meet the water table separation requirement. Who is responsible for paying for that system upgrade? The answer is the applicant. Mr. Odom spoke about the possible legal quagmire if the Department of Health made a mistake on the water table call. Will the Department of Health be responsible for bringing those systems up to code if they originally permitted and approved a system with less than a 24 inch water table separation? Mr. Briggs recognized the possibility of such a situation causing legal issues. Another question posed was if the repair code is changing for systems for separations after 1983. The repair code will be changed to bring it in line with the statute.

Review of page 4 began with line 69 that states the owner shall submit an application for a construction permit within 60 days of the notice to obtain a permit.

The language on line 71 through 81 addresses conditions for requesting exemptions or extensions.

The next paragraph beginning on line 82 outlines disciplinary standards for the evaluators.

The last part on page 5 addresses the septage disposal issue. Owners who do not comply with the provisions of this section shall be subject to Citations, administrative fines, and other legal remedies.

Mr. Briggs reviewed specifics of the form. He reiterated that the thought is to use this form to acquire data to be able to score applications in preparation for the grant program. Soil profile

7

documentation was discussed, particularly in regard to the industry using existing records from the health department, where available, to document the soil profile of the water table. Mr. Melling asked about the many irrigation wells that are too close to a drainfield creating a source of contamination for the groundwater. Mr. Harper asked for opinions from contractors about the cost for an evaluation. Mr. Mong, Mr. Prescott, Ms. Vause, Mr. Woodruff, and Mr. Averett spoke their projections of the cost beginning as low as $250 and upward depending on the variables of the evaluation. Mr. Hetrick commented on implementing the program in January 2011. Mr. Hetrick said we all want an inspection program but cautioned that this is a very sensitive issue especially to Central Florida legislators and that we do not want to see the gains made falter because we went 'out of the box' and did something more stringent creating consumer complaints about costs, etc. Mr. Briggs acknowledged Mr. Hetrick's warnings and said that he realizes the danger that the Legislature could come back and repeal. He said the program office thinks the water table separation is a critical issue. If we are not going to address those systems that are too close to the water table, then what are we doing? We are not fixing the problem ... just continuing it. Ms. Sanzone asked where the variance process comes into play in this current situation. Mr. Briggs responded that any variance granted would be honored. A section in Chapter 381 provides for variances.

Paul Runk from Representative Alan Hayes' office asked for a more specific cost estimation for the evaluation process. He attended a meeting last year with Senator Constantine and the Markham Woods folks where the cost was represented as being in the $200 range for a pump out and inspection. If the cost is closer to $1,000, he said he could guarantee that the representatives from the Central Florida area will have serious concerns. Mr. Briggs responded that the goal is to keep this at the lowest cost level possible but that there are key issues in the statute that need to be addressed. We are very sensitive to the costs for the homeowners. Ms. Vause spoke of the responsibilities of this panel and that they will work diligently to provide the state with the information needed but to also give the consumer the quality that they deserve for a reasonable price. Mr. Runk requested that he be provided copies of the rule as it is being reworked. Mr. Bietel with the Markham Woods Association agreed with the comments from Mr. Hetrick and Mr. Runk.

Issue 10-05 - Part II (Florida Keys) SB 550, Update Standards Rule Sections: 64E-6.017, 018, 0181, 0182

SB 550 amended repair standards for the Florida Keys. Mr. Briggs explained that the Keys are under a 10-10-10 1 standard to reduce both nitrogen and phosphorous. All systems that are not going to be connected to sewer are required to be upgraded to that standard under the new law by December of 2015. Prior to this there was statutory language in a separate law that provided an interim standard for all systems in those areas that were scheduled to be sewered. That provision expired July 1, 2010. Monroe County is moving forward with the sewer projects. Mr. Briggs expects that Monroe County will end up with less than 1,000 onsite systems by the time the 2015 date is reached. He told the panel that the language seen in this issue is statutory language being brought into place as well as a roll back to the rule that was in place with the sand lined drainfield and brought those standards for repairs forward into the new rule. A workshop will be held in Monroe County on this proposed rule. Mr. Johnson noted minor corrections/additions that need to be made to this language. On line 86, the word 'to' should be added before 'frequent'. Then on line 22 of page 4, he expressed uncertainty about the intent of ' ... minimum chlorine contact time of 15 minutes in the injection well ... '. Mr. Briggs said it should read ' .. . prior to the injection well ... '. Mr. Johnson also thought that perhaps 'at the peak hourly rate' should be added to that verbiage. Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Melling, motioned to approve. The panel concurred and the issue was approved.

Issue 07-23 - Performance-Based Systems-Standards Rule Sections: 64E-6.025

8

Dr. Roeder explained that this issue proposes changes to replace current 7 -day and 30-day average discharge limits with a percent removal and summarizes the performance requirements into a table format. This issue was first introduced in August 2007 and subsequently tabled several times for revisions. Dr. Roeder said the issue co-mingles with a couple of other issues on today's agenda. He explained that this revision reorganizes the standards of performance based systems and that some clarifying changes were made to the table. Changes to the table were specifically for the grab sample standards for the Florida Keys for nitrogen/phosphorous being four times the annual average. Mr. Johnson asked a question about the standards for reading the table about the hierarchy for removal of pollutants. Dr. Roeder referred to line 74 of the proposed language for the answer. Mr. Liskey motioned to approve the issue. Mr. Johnson called the second. Mr. Pence asked about the stricken language beginning on line 50 regarding maintenance entities. Dr. Roeder responded that there is language on how to approve maintenance entities under the operating permit section so there was no need to repeat the language for the approval process for maintenance entities under 'Definitions'. From the audience Mr. Churchill commented about a change reflected in this revision being the reduction to 62 percent from 70 percent nitrogen removal. He said that two different standards are being talked about, 10 mg/l and 62 percent citing examples of 'real world' infinite nitrogen levels. Dr. Roeder explained the reasoning for changing to 62 percent. Discussion concluded and the panel voted to approve the issue.

Issue 08-09 -Innovative Systems - Test Data Required Rule Sections: 64E-6.004, 64E-6.026

Dr. Roeder asked the panel to peruse the more recent version of this issue that was distributed at the beginning of the meeting instead of the one included in the mail out in the original package. He pointed out that the main change is seen in the 'Summary' language on page 1. Mr. Johnson suggested that in the future with changes in the text of an issue that those changes be flagged. He expressed the difficulty the panel faces in the short timeframe of reading and understanding changes brought forward on the day of a meeting. Mr. Hetrick asked how this relates to the on-going, passive nitrogen reduction study and wanted to know if this will impact the two million dollars appropriated by this year's Legislature. Mr. Briggs said this language is intended to get into place in order to utilize results of that study. Mr. Everson stated concerns with this issue aboufthe inability under these innovative protocols to obtain permits from the state for either an innovative system demonstration permit or more importantly an innovative system development permit because both of those require outside third party testing in order to prove that they can get a permit. He further said the whole purpose of the passive study and the research being done was to provide a way for innovative technology to be explored within the state to provide cost effective alternatives. Dr. Roeder responded that Mr. Everson's concerns are covered under the development permit on lines 86 88. Mr. Everson was unconvinced that this would satisfy his concerns. Mr. Harper suggested that Department staff work with Mr. Everson regarding his concerns. Mr. Johnson motioned to approve this issue 08-09 as originally submitted in the agenda packets, not those subsequent revisions that were distributed at the beginning of today's meeting. Mr. Dragoun called the second. Mr. Liskey stated his interpretation of the intention of this proposed language and said that everyone needs to understand that this is a positive move. Issue 08-09 was approved.

Issue 09-10 - Septage Logs Rule Sections: 64E-6.010

9

This issue proposes changes in the reporting requirements for service providers to provide quarterly summaries of septage and holding tank waste pumped, treated and land applied. Mr. Briggs said the collected information will be instrumental in supplementing the inventory data base. Mr. Averett asked several questions and stated that his company already has this type of information involving septage services on work orders but added this requirement will definitely add more cumbersome paperwork. He also asked if this issue affects the portable toilet industry to which Mr. Briggs responded that this issue does not include portable toilets. Following questions and comments by Mr. Himschoot, discussion concluded. Mr. Franz, seconded by Mr. Dragoun, motioned to approve the issue. The motion carried and the issue was approved.

Issue 09-13 - Septage Storage Tanks Rule Sections: 64E-6.010

Mr. Briggs briefly explained the issue and its progression through the Variance Committee. There were no questions or comments. Mr. Odom motioned to approve the issue. Mr. Melling called the second and the motion carried.

Issue 09-14 - Protected Steel Treatment Receptacles Rule Sections: 64E-6.013

Mr. Briggs explained the issue. Mr. Gary Duran with Code Compliance, Inc.lHighland Tank & Mfg. Co. stepped forward to thank the panel and the department for working with him and his company on this issue. Mr. Woodruff, seconded by Mr. Franz, motioned to approve. The panel concurred and the issue was approved.

Issue 09-15 - Duplexes on One Lot Rule Sections: 64E-6.004

The proposed language for this issue clarifies when an easement is required for duplexes on single lots or establishments on multiple lots. The issue was discussed at the previous meeting and has been reviewed by the Variance Committee. There were no questions or comments. Mr. Melling motioned to approve. Mr. Johnson called the second and the panel approved the issue.

Issue 09-16 - Triple-Wide Mobile Home Spaces; Cleanup MHP Sizing Rule Sections:

Mr. Briggs said the proposed language provides sizing criteria for triple-wide mobile home spaces in Mobile Home Parks. The issue was reviewed by the Variance Committee and is ready for final approval by the TRAP. Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Odom, motioned to approve and the panel concurred.

Issue 09-17 - Site Plans Rule Sections: 64E-6.004

This issue was discussed at the January 28 TRAP meeting and subsequently reviewed and approved by the Variance Committee. The proposed language sets standards in regard to the scale and how much error is allowed in the drawings. Mr. Johnson felt that more clarity is needed to be made to the language on lines 5 and 6 regarding the margin of error. Mr. Briggs said bureau staff will clarify the language. Mr. Johnson motioned to approve with clarification of the margin of error scale. Mr. Liskey seconded the motion and the issue was approved by the panel.

Issue 09-18 - PBTS Plans Rule Sections: - 64E-6.028

This issue language requires all plans to be signed and sealed but does not specify the number of copies to submit. Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Odom, motioned to approve and the panel concurred.

Issue 09-19 - Commercial Sewage Waste Definition Rule Sections: 64E-6.002

The issue aligns definition of commercial waste with that in DEPs interagency agreement. Motion to approve called by Mr. Liskey. Mr. Dragoun seconded the motion and the panel voted approval.

Issue 09-20 - Incinerating Toilets Rule Sections: 64E-6.009

10

This language updates the references for incinerating toilet standards. The issue was reviewed and approved by the Variance Committee. Mr. Odom, seconded by Mr. Liskey, motioned to approve. The panel concurred and the issue was approved.

Issue 09-21 - Inspection by Engineers Rule Sections: 64E-6.003

This issue was originated by Mr. Franz that removes the residential exemption for engineer inspection. Following a brief discussion and comments by Mr. Himschoot, a motion was called by Mr. Johnson to approve. Mr. Dragoun seconded the motion followed with a vote to approve by the panel.

Issue 10-01 - Lower Flow Rates for Large Houses Rule Section: 64E-6.008, Table I

Mr. Briggs explained that this is the bedroom sizing issue that was originally part of issue 08-15 regarding bedroom re-definition. The issue was discussed at the previous meeting and sent to the Variance Committee for their review and comment. The language was also sent to the Florida Building Commission. Mr. Odom, seconded by Ms. Sanzone, motioned to approve and followed with a unanimous vote to approve the issue.

Mr. Harper stopped the meeting at 11 :55 AM for lunch.

Following the lunch break, Mr. Harper resumed the meeting with election of a new chairman and vice-chairman. Ms. Tucker nominated Ken Odom as Chairman recalling his strong leadership on the few occasions when Mr. Harper was absent. Mr. Franz seconded the nomination and the panel voted Mr. Odom to be the new Chairman. Mr. Liskey nominated Roy Pence to fill the position as Vice-Chairman. Ms. Tucker nominated Ellen Vause but Ms. Vause declined the honor because of responsibilities involving a family illness. Mr. Franz called the second to nominate Mr. Pence. Unanimous panel approval followed and Mr. Pence was voted to be the new Vice Chairman.

Issue 10-02 - Soil Replacement for Drip Systems Rule Sections: 64E-6.009

11

This issue was originated by Mr. Franz who briefly explained specifics of the language that would eliminate the requirement for replacement of spodic horizons between 24 and 42 inches below a drip emitter drainfield. Brief discussion followed with Mr. Harper commenting on the money saving potential. Mr. Liskey motioned to approve. Mr. Dragoun seconded the motion followed with a unanimous vote from the panel to approve the issue.

Issue 10-06 - Existing Systems Rule Sections: 64E-6.001

Mr. Briggs said this language is a re-write of the opening section of the rule for the existing systems section in an attempt to make the verbiage clearer. He said there is only one change in the language regarding water table separation. Currently when doing a repair or modification a 12 inch separation is required. The language on lines 35 and 36 brings into compliance with the new language in SB 550 in regard to that separation, i.e. pre-1983 has to be modified to meet a 12 inch separation and after 1983 a 24 inch separation is required. Mr. Pence asked to be directed to the language in SB 550 that relates to this issue. Mr. Briggs complied indicating that the language is found on page 109 on line 3154. Mr. Johnson pointed out missing words/corrections in the issue language on lines 11, 12, 31, 42, and 53. Mr. Odom asked how this language about existing systems relates to mobile homes. Additional comments and questions ensued with Mr. Briggs agreeing that more clarity is needed on lines 34, 35 and 36 for mobile homes when not increasing flow in terms of the water table separation. Mr. Himschoot, Mr. Averett, Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Johnson commented about the Voluntary System Inspection Report form eliciting more questions and discussion about liability issues, etc. culminating in general consensus that there needs to be more clarity in the language on the form. Ms. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Liskey, motioned to table the issue pending clarification of who can perform the inspections and also to allow time for the panel to compare the re-written language to the old language. A unanimous vote to table followed.

Issue 10-09 - L TAR Adjustments Rule Sections: 64E-6.028

Mr. Briggs said this is more clean-up language that modifies one table to match up with previously approved sizing. Mr. Odom expressed confusion about the trench width (inches) equaling 36.00 on the table. Mr. Booher gave a convoluted explanation followed by a general agreement that the table should be made clearer. Mr. Liskey called the motion to approve with Mr. Johnson seconding the motion. The panel concurred and the issue was approved.

Issue 10-10 - Site Plans, Mounds Rule Sections: 64E-6.004, 5, 8, 9, 15

Mr. Briggs explained the purpose of the issue that incorporates interpretive memos and cleans-up some existing language about showing and determining MAFL and other setback features, mound size determination, and setback to shallow swales. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Franz motioned to approve. However, during discussion that followed, Mr. Odom posed a question about new language under 64E-6.015 that says, 'The model of any particular non-mineral aggregate or chamber system shall be included." He said there are a lot of variables in multi-pipe systems and spoke of the difficulty of determining the model. Lengthy discussion followed with comments and recommendations by Ms. Vause, Mr. Sirmans, Mr. Franz, and Ms. Tucker. The earlier motion to approve was withdrawn. Mr. Liskey then called a motion to table the issue, seconded by Mr. Cordova. The motion carried and the issue was tabled.

Issue 10-11 - Subject: PBTS Design Standards Rule Sections: 64E-6.0295

12

Dr. Roeder explained that the data collected from current performance based treatment systems are listed in several different ways depending on the type of test data submitted. The proposed language of this issue provides a way to compile performance data, and also requires reclassification of all performance based treatment systems. Mr. Churchill said that the language has been extensively revised and, for the most part, addresses most of his previous concerns. He referred to line 67 and spoke about a specific concern about interim approval criteria but Dr. Roeder's response satisfied that concern. Damann Anderson voiced several concerns about the issue. He has difficulty with not allowing soil to be used as a treatment mechanism for some of the parameters because soil is what we rely on for secondary treatment for all conventional onsite wastewater systems. He also referred to the language for the advance wastewater treatment in (c.) lines 67, 68, and 69. He said he has difficulty with the 62 percent for the Keys and 90 percent for advanced wastewater treatment standards. He further stated that the Keys are probably the most sensitive area in the state for nitrogen needing the highest level of standards and said that 62 percent is not that great. He also expressed concerns about the language beginning on line 62 about fecal coliform. Mr. Hetrick commented about the importance of the issue and thinks the language is much improved. However, certain issues were isolated today and he would like to see Mr. Anderson's consideration taken into account and maybe make some modifications to bring back to the TRAP. Mr. Harper asked, 'how critical is the issue?' Mr. Briggs said there has been some disconnect in how systems have been evaluated creating unfairness to people. Following more discussion, Mr. Dragoun, seconded by Mr. Melling, motioned to approve the issue providing that department staff clarifies the language in the questionable areas discussed today. The motion passed.

Mr. Booher spoke briefly about conclusions he has drawn about the retesting of polyethylene tanks. The TRAP approved the issue about retesting polyethylene tanks to the 2006 Standard in August 2008. The problem remains, however, that there was no satisfactory technique for determining the deflection of the tanks. Have the deformation problems come from improper installation or improper design? Mr. Booher has been evaluating the process and has consulted with various counties finding that the counties are not seeing as many problems as previously seen. A logical conclusion is that the installation instructions are being more closely followed. He remains concerned though that a long term problem resulting from deformation of the polyethylene tanks could pose a real nightmare in the future. He does not recommend retesting with the vacuum test stating that he does not think the vacuum test is applicable to the poly tanks. He advocates using a test that directly relates to the poly tanks and recommends development of a test that better simulates the characteristics of those tanks. He also gave examples of testing methods used in Canada as well as testing methods used by IATMO. Mr. Booher, in closing, expressed the possibility of building a testing area at the training center so manufacturers could do the testing themselves at the training center with a qualified witness. Mr. Harper intervened by saying that this is the department's call further adding that perhaps another rule needs to be developed to address those proposals.

The meeting adjourned at 2:45 PM.

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

2988 subsection (5) of that section is renumbered as subsection (6),

2989 and new subsections (5) and (7) are added to that section, to

2990 read:

2991 381.0065 Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems;

2992 regu1ation.-

2993 (1) LEGISLATIVE INTENT.-

2994 (a) It is the intent of the Legislature that proper

2995 management of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems is

2996 paramount to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. It

2997 is further the intent of the Legislature that the department

2998 shall administer an evaluation program to ensure the operational

2999 condition of the system and identify any failure with the

3000 system.

3001 JQl It is the intent of the Legislature that where a

3002 publicly owned or investor-owned sewerage system is not

3003 available, the department shall issue permits for the

3004

3005

3006

3007

3008

3009

3010

3011

3012

3013

3014

3015

3016

construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair

of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems under conditions

as described in this section and rules adopted under this

section. It is further the intent of the Legislature that the

installation and use of onsite sewage treatment and disposal

systems not adversely affect the public health or significantly

degrade the groundwater or surface water.

(4) PERMITS; INSTALLATION; AND CONDITIONS.-A person may not

construct, repair, modify, abandon, or operate an onsite sewage

treatment and disposal system without first obtaining a permit

approved by the department. The department may issue permits to

carry out this section, but shall not make the issuance of such

permits contingent upon prior approval by the Department of

Page 104 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3017

3018

3019

3020

3021

3022

3023

3024

3025

3026

3027

3028

3029

3030

3031

3032

3033

3034

3035

3036

3037

3038

3039

3040

3041

3042

3043

3044

3045

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

Environmental Protection, except that the issuance of a permit

for work seaward of the coastal construction control line

established under s. 161.053 shall be contingent upon receipt of

any required coastal construction control line permit from the

Department of Environmental Protection. A construction permit is

valid for 18 months from the issuance date and may be extended

by the department for one 90-day period under rules adopted by

the department. A repair permit is valid for 90 days from the

date of issuance. An operating permit must be obtained prior to

the use of any aerobic treatment unit or if the establishment

generates commercial waste. Buildings or establishments that use

an aerobic treatment unit or generate commercial waste shall be

inspected by the department at least annually to assure

compliance with the terms of the operating permit. The operating

permit for a commercial wastewater system is valid for 1 year

from the date of issuance and must be renewed annually. The

operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit is valid for 2

years from the date of issuance and must be renewed every 2

years. If all information pertaining to the siting, location,

and installation conditions or repair of an onsite sewage

treatment and disposal system remains the same, a construction

or repair permit for the onsite sewage treatment and disposal

system may be transferred to another person, if the transferee

files, within 60 days after the transfer of ownership, an

amended application providing all corrected information and

proof of ownership of the property. There is no fee associated

with the processing of this supplemental information. A person

may not contract to construct, modify, alter, repair, service,

abandon, or maintain any portion of an onsite sewage treatment

Page 105 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3046

3047

3048

3049

3050

3051

3052

3053

3054

3055

3056

3057

3058

3059

3060

3061

3062

3063

3064

3065

3066

3067

3068

3069

3070

3071

3072

3073

3074

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

and disposal system without being registered under part III of

chapter 489. A property owner who personally performs

construction, maintenance, or repairs to a system serving his or

her own owner-occupied single-family residence is exempt from

registration requirements for performing such construction,

maintenance, or repairs on that residence, but is subject to all

permitting requirements. A municipality or political subdivision

of the state may not issue a building or plumbing permit for any

building that requires the use of an onsite sewage treatment and

disposal system unless the owner or builder has received a

construction permit for such system from the department. A

building or structure may not be occupied and a municipality,

political subdivision, or any state or federal agency may not

authorize occupancy until the department approves the final

installation of the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system.

A municipality or political subdivision of the state may not

approve any change in occupancy or tenancy of a building that

uses an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system until the

department has reviewed the use of the system with the proposed

change, approved the change, and amended the operating permit.

(1) For the Florida Keys, the department shall adopt a

special rule for the construction, installation, modification,

operation, repair, maintenance, and performance of onsite sewage

treatment and disposal systems which considers the unique soil

conditions and whieh eonsiders water table elevations,

densities, and setback requirements. On lots where a setback

distance of 75 feet from surface waters, saltmarsh, and

buttonwood association habitat areas cannot be met, an injection

well, approved and permitted by the department, may be used for

Page 106 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3075

3076

3077

3078

3079

3080

3081

3082

3083

3084

3085

3086

3087

3088

3089

3090

3091

3092

3093

3094

3095

3096

3097

3098

3099

3100

3101

3102

3103

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

disposal of effluent from onsite sewage treatment and disposal

systems. The following additional requirements apply to onsite

sewage treatment and disposal systems in Monroe County:

1. The county, each municipality, and those special

districts established for the purpose of the collection,

transmission, treatment, or disposal of sewage shall ensure, in

accordance with the specific schedules adopted by the

Administration Commission under s. 380.0552, the completion of

onsite sewage treatment and disposal system upgrades to meet the

requirements of this paragraph.

2. Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must cease

discharge by December 31, 2015, or must comply with department

rules and provide the level of treatment which, on a permitted

annual average basis, produces an effluent that contains no more

than the following concentrations:

a. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) of 10 mg/l.

b. Suspended Solids of 10 mg/l.

c. Total Nitrogen, expressed as N, of 10 mg/l.

d. Total Phosphorus, expressed as P, of 1 mg/l.

In addition, onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems

discharging to an injection well must provide basic disinfection

as defined by department rule.

3. On or after July 1, 2010, all new, modified, and

repaired onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must

provide the level of treatment described in subparagraph 2.

However, in areas scheduled to be served by central sewer by

December 31, 2015, if the property owner has paid a connection

fee or assessment for connection to the central sewer system, an

Page 107 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

3104 onsite sewage treatment and disposal system may be repaired to

3105 the following minimum standards:

3106 a. The existing tanks must be pumped and inspected and

3107 certified as being watertight and free of defects in accordance

3108 with department rule; and

3109 b. A sand-lined drainfield or injection well in accordance

3110 with department rule must be installed.

3111 4. Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must be

3112 monitored for total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations

3113 as required by department rule.

3114 5. The department shall enforce proper installation,

3115 operation, and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and

3116 disposal systems pursuant to this chapter, including ensuring

3117 that the appropriate level of treatment described in

3118 subparagraph 2. is met.

3119 6. The authority of a local government, including a special

3120 district, to mandate connection of an onsite sewage treatment

3121 and disposal system is governed by section 4 of chapter 99-395,

3122 Laws of Florida.

3123 (5) EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT.-

3124 (a) Beginning January 1, 2011, the department shall

3125 administer an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system

3126 evaluation program for the purpose of assessing the fundamental

3127 operational condition of systems and identifying any failures

3128 within the systems. The department shall adopt rules

3129 implementing the program standards, procedures, and

3130 requirements, including, but not limited to, a schedule for a 5-

3131

3132

year evaluation cycle, requirements for the pump-out of a system

or repair of a failing system, enforcement procedures for

Page 108 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

3133 failure of a system owner to obtain an evaluation of the system,

3134 and failure of a contractor to timely submit evaluation results

3135 to the department and the system owner. The department shall

3136 ensure statewide implementation of the evaluation and assessment

3137 program by January 1, 2016.

3138 (bl Owners of an onsite sewage treatment and disposal

3139 system, excluding a system that is required to obtain an

3140 operating permit, shall have the system evaluated at least once

3141 every 5 years to assess the fundamental operational condition of

3142 the system, and identify any failure within the system.

3143 (cl All evaluation procedures must be documented and

3144 nothing in this subsection limits the amount of detail an

3145 evaluator may provide at his or her professional discretion. The

3146 evaluation must include a tank and drainfield evaluation, a

3147 written assessment of the condition of the system, and, if

3148

3149

3150

3151

3152

3153

3154

3155

3156

3157

3158

3159

3160

3161

necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to the department's

procedure.

(dl1. Systems being evaluated that were installed prior to

January 1, 1983, shall meet a minimum 6-inch separation from the

bottom of the drainfield to the wettest season water table

elevation as defined by department rule. All drainfield repairs,

replacements or modifications to systems installed prior to

January 1, 1983, shall meet a minimum 12-inch separation from

the bottom of the drainfield to the wettest season water table

elevation as defined by department rule.

2. Systems being evaluated that were installed on or after

January 1, 1983, shall meet a minimum 12-inch separation from

the bottom of the drainfield to the wettest season water table

elevation as defined by department rule. All drainfield repairs,

Page 109 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3162

3163

3164

3165

3166

3167

3168

3169

3170

3171

3172

3173

3174

3175

3176

3177

3178

3179

3180

3181

3182

3183

3184

3185

3186

3187

3188

3189

3190

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

replacements or modification to systems developed on or after

January 1, 1983, shall meet a minimum 24-inch separation from

the bottom of the drainfield to the wettest season water table

elevation.

(e) If documentation of a tank pump-out or a permitted new

installation, repair, or modification of the system within the

previous 5 years is provided, and states the capacity of the

tank and indicates that the condition of the tank is not a

sanitary or public health nuisance pursuant to department rule,

a pump-out of the system is not required.

(f) Owners are responsible for paying the cost of any

required pump-out, repair, or replacement pursuant to department

rule, and may not request partial evaluation or the omission of

portions of the evaluation.

(g) Each evaluation or pump-out required under this

subsection must be performed by a septic tank contractor or

master septic tank contractor registered under part III of

chapter 489, a professional engineer with wastewater treatment

system experience licensed pursuant to chapter 471, or an

environmental health professional certified under chapter 381 in

the area of onsite sewage treatment and disposal system

evaluation.

(h) The evaluation report fee collected pursuant to s.

381.0066(2) (b) shall be remitted to the department by the

evaluator at the time the report is submitted.

(i) Prior to any evaluation deadline, the department must

provide a minimum of 60 days' notice to owners that their

systems must be evaluated by that deadline. The department may

include a copy of any homeowner educational materials developed

Page 110 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3191

3192

3193

3194

3195

3196

3197

3198

3199

3200

3201

3202

3203

3204

3205

3206

3207

3208

3209

3210

3211

3212

3213

3214

3215

3216

3217

3218

3219

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

pursuant to this section which provides information on the

proper maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal

systems.

~~ ENFORCEMENT; RIGHT OF ENTRY; CITATIONS.-

(a) Department personnel who have reason to believe

noncompliance exists, may at any reasonable time, enter the

premises permitted under ss. 381.0065-381.0066, or the business

premises of any septic tank contractor or master septic tank

contractor registered under part III of chapter 489, or any

premises that the department has reason to believe is being

operated or maintained not in compliance, to determine

compliance with the provisions of this section, part I of

chapter 386, or part III of chapter 489 or rules or standards

adopted under ss. 381.0065-381.0067, part I of chapter 386, or

part III of chapter 489. As used in this paragraph, the term

"premises" does not include a residence or private building. To

gain entry to a residence or private building, the department

must obtain permission from the owner or occupant or secure an

inspection warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b)l. The department may issue citations that may contain

an order of correction or an order to pay a fine, or both, for

violations of ss. 381.0065-381.0067, part I of chapter 386, or

part III of chapter 489 or the rules adopted by the department,

when a violation of these sections or rules is enforceable by an

administrative or civil remedy, or when a violation of these

sections or rules is a misdemeanor of the second degree. A

citation issued under ss. 381.0065-381.0067, part I of chapter

386, or part III of chapter 489 constitutes a notice of proposed

agency action.

Page 111 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3220

3221

3222

3223

3224

3225

3226

3227

3228

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

2. A citation must be in writing and must describe the

particular nature of the violation, including specific reference

to the provisions of law or rule allegedly violated.

3. The fines imposed by a citation issued by the department

may not exceed $500 for each violation. Each day the violation

exists constitutes a separate violation for which a citation may

be issued.

4. The department shall inform the recipient, by written

notice pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57, of the right to an

3229 administrative hearing to contest the citation within 21 days

3230 after the date the citation is received. The citation must

3231 contain a conspicuous statement that if the recipient fails to

3232 pay the fine within the time allowed, or fails to appear to

3233 contest the citation after having requested a hearing, the

3234 recipient has waived the recipient's right to contest the

3235 citation and must pay an amount up to the maximum fine.

3236 5. The department may reduce or waive the fine imposed by

3237 the citation. In determining whether to reduce or waive the

3238 fine, the department must consider the gravity of the violation,

3239 the person's attempts at correcting the violation, and the

3240 person's history of previous violations including violations for

3241 which enforcement actions were taken under ss. 381.0065-

3242

3243

3244

3245

3246

3247

3248

381.0067, part I of chapter 386, part III of chapter 489, or

other provisions of law or rule.

6. Any person who willfully refuses to sign and accept a

citation issued by the department commits a misdemeanor of the

second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s.

775.083.

7. The department, pursuant to ss. 381.0065-381.0067, part

Page 112 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3249

3250

3251

3252

3253

3254

3255

3256

3257

3258

3259

3260

3261

3262

3263

3264

3265

3266

3267

3268

3269

3270

3271

3272

3273

3274

3275

3276

3277

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

I of chapter 386, or part III of chapter 489, shall deposit any

fines it collects in the county health department trust fund for

use in providing services specified in those sections.

8. This section provides an alternative means of enforcing

ss. 381.0065-381.0067, part I of chapter 386, and part III of

chapter 489. This section does not prohibit the department from

enforcing ss. 381.0065-381.0067, part I of chapter 386, or part

III of chapter 489, or its rules, by any other means. However,

the department must elect to use only a single method of

enforcement for each violation.

(7) LAND APPLICATION OF SEPTAGE PROHIBITED.-Effective

January 1, 2016, the land application of septage from onsite

sewage treatment and disposal systems is prohibited. By February

1, 2011, the department, in consultation with the Department of

Environmental Protection, shall provide a report to the

Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the

House of Representatives, recommending alternative methods to

establish enhanced treatment levels for the land application of

septage from onsite sewage and disposal systems. The report

shall include, but is not limited to, a schedule for the

reduction in land application, appropriate treatment levels,

alternative methods for treatment and disposal, enhanced

application site permitting requirements including any

requirements for nutrient management plans, and the range of

costs to local governments, affected businesses and individuals

for alternative treatment and disposal methods. The report shall

also include any recommendations for legislation or rule

authority needed to reduce land application of septage.

Section 36. Section 381.00656, Florida Statutes, is created

Page 113 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

3278 to read:

3279 381.00656 Grant program for repair of onsite sewage

3280 treatment disposal systems.-Effective January 1, 2012, the

3281 department shall administer a grant program to assist owners of

3282 onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems identified pursuant

3283 to s. 381.0065 or the rules adopted thereunder. A grant under

3284 the program may be awarded to an owner only for the purpose of

3285 inspecting, pumping, repairing, or replacing a system serving a

3286 single-family residence occupied by an owner with a family

3287 income of less than or equal to 133 percent of the federal

3288 poverty level at the time of application. The department may

3289 prioritize applications for an award of grant funds based upon

3290 the severity of a system's failure, its relative environmental

3291 impact, the income of the family, or any combination thereof.

3292 The department shall adopt rules establishing the grant

3293 application and award process, including an application form.

3294 The department shall seek to make grants in each fiscal year

3295 equal to the total amount of grant funds available, with any

3296 excess funds used for grant awards in subsequent fiscal years.

3297

3298

3299

3300

3301

3302

3303

3304

3305

3306

Section 37. Subsection (2) of section 381.0066, Florida

Statutes, is amended to read:

381.0066 Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems;

fees.-

(2) The minimum fees in the following fee schedule apply

until changed by rule by the department within the following

limits:

(a) Application review, permit issuance, or system

inspection, including repair of a subsurface, mound, filled, or

other alternative system or permitting of an abandoned system: a

Page 114 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

3307 fee of not less than $25, or more than $125.

3308 (b) A 5-year evaluation report submitted pursuant to s.

3309 381.0065(5): a fee not less than $15, or more than $30. At least

3310 $1 and no more than $5 collected pursuant to this paragraph

3311 shall be used to fund a grant program established under s.

3312 381.00656.

3313 ~+Bt Site evaluation, site reevaluation, evaluation of a

3314 system previously in use, or a per annum septage disposal site

3315 evaluation: a fee of not less than $40, or more than $115.

3316 ~+et Biennial Operating permit for aerobic treatment

3317 units or performance-based treatment systems: a fee of not more

3318 than $100.

3319 ~+6+ Annual operating permit for systems located in areas

3320 zoned for industrial manufacturing or equivalent uses or where

3321 the system is expected to receive wastewater which is not

3322 domestic in nature: a fee of not less than $150, or more than

3323 $300.

3324 l!l+et Innovative technology: a fee not to exceed $25,000.

3325 jgl++t Septage disposal service, septage stabilization

3326 facility, portable or temporary toilet service, tank

3327

3328

3329

3330

3331

3332

3333

3334

3335

manufacturer inspection: a fee of not less than $25, or more

than $200, per year.

ibl~ Application for variance: a fee of not less than

$150, or more than $300.

Jll+fi+ Annual operating permit for waterless, incinerating,

or organic waste composting toilets: a fee of not less than $50,

or more than $150.

lil+±+ Aerobic treatment unit or performance-based

treatment system maintenance entity permit: a fee of not less

Page 115 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3336

3337

3338

3339

3340

3341

3342

3343

3344

3345

3346

3347

3348

3349

3350

3351

3352

3353

3354

3355

3356

3357

3358

3359

3360

3361

3362

3363

3364

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

than $25, or more than $150, per year.

J!l+t+ Reinspection fee per visit for site inspection after

system construction approval or for noncompliant system

installation per site visit: a fee of not less than $25, or more

than $100.

(1)+*+ Research: An additional $5 fee shall be added to

each new system construction permit issued to be used to fund

onsite sewage treatment and disposal system research,

demonstration, and training projects. Five dollars from any

repair permit fee collected under this section shall be used for

funding the hands-on training centers described in s.

381. 0065 (3) (j) .

~+±+ Annual operating permit, including annual inspection

and any required sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent,

for an engineer-designed performance-based system: a fee of not

less than $150, or more than $300.

On or before January 1, 2011, the Surgeon General, after

consultation with the Revenue Estimating Conference, shall

determine a revenue neutral fee schedule for services provided

pursuant to s. 381.0065(5) within the parameters set in

paragraph (b). Such determination is not subject to the

provisions of chapter 120. The funds collected pursuant to this

subsection must be deposited in a trust fund administered by the

department, to be used for the purposes stated in this section

and ss. 381.0065 and 381.00655.

Section 38. Subsection (9) of section 403.086, Florida

Statutes, is amended, and subsection (10) is added to that

section, to read:

Page 116 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

# 10-12 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10:17'15 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: S8550: Five-year System Evaluation

Rule Sections: 64E-6 - NEW

SB-550 (2010-205 LOF) requires all systems not under operating permit to be evaluated every 5 years. Also requires a grant program for evaluation and repair for low­income home-owners

Issue Originated By: Gerald Briggs, DOH

Justification: The proposed changes incorporate the requirements of 2010-205, LOF

Proposed Rule Change: 1 0-12--64E-6.new-Evaluation_and_Assessment-9-1 0- (See Attached) 2010.doc

Summary: Implements SB 550 (2010-205 LOF) requiring evaluation of all systems every five years and a grant program for low-income homeowners.

Possible Financial Impacts: Property owners will be required to pay for an evaluation, possible pump-out, and possible system repair. Grant program available for low-income home-owners.

Date New: 6/30/2010 Initially Reviewed by Trap: 7/15/2010 Tabled by Trap: 7/15/2010 Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments:

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

7/15/10 TRAP tabled to revise language per TRAP discussion. 8/5/2010 Edited to reflect discussions with FOWA 8/18/2010 Edited to reflect discussions with DOH staff and FOWA 8/25/2010 Added language to allow for multiple systems to be evaluated on a schedule and some of David's edits. 8/30/10 Added language for soils course. 9/7/10 incorporated Gerald's review. 9/10/10 Incorporated comments from FOWA discussion.

D D

9/10/2010 version

2 Evaluation and Assessment

3 (1) Except for systems required to obtain an operating permit, all systems shall be evaluated

4 every five years to assess their fundamental operational condition and identify any failures. The

5 following standards shall apply:

6 (a) The Department shall notify owners of the requirement to have their system evaluated at

7 least 60 days prior to the deadline for their system evaluation.

8 (b) The owner may request a one-time exemption from the evaluation requirement or a one-

9 time extension of the time to obtain an evaluation under the following conditions:

10 1. A notice that sewer will be available within the next five years and written arrangement for

11 payment of any utility assessments or connection fees have been made. A letter from the sewer

12 utility regarding the anticipated date of sewer availability and acknowledging the payment of

13 assessments or fees must be provided to the Department with the request. The property owner

14 shall notify the Department in writing when the sewer connection has been completed.

15 2. The owner of a single family owner-occupied residence who meets the income level for

16 grant assistance under 381.0066, F.S., may request a one time, one year extension. Written

17 documentation of current income level, such as the previous year federal tax return or a written

18 determination, provided by a government agency, of the family income level as a percentage of

19 the federal poverty level, must be provided with the request.

20 (c) If the evaluation cannot be scheduled by the deadline, the owner shall provide to the

21 Department, not later than the deadline, a copy of a signed contract to have the evaluation

22 performed with the expected completion date, not later than 60 days after the original deadline,

23 noted in the contract. In addition to any other administrative action authorized by law, the

24 Department may impose a fine of up to $500 for failure to comply with the provisions of this

25 section. Each day the violation continues may constitute a separate violation.

26 1. If there is more than one onsite sewage system on the owner's property, the owner may

27 elect to have some systems evaluated in subsequent years provided at least 20% of all systems on

28 the property and no less than one system are evaluated by the original deadline and each

29 subsequent year until all systems on the property are evaluated. The written evaluation schedule

30 for all systems shall be signed by the property owner and provided to the Department prior to the

31 original deadline.

1

32 2. Initial notification shall begin in 2011 with notification to owners of systems with permit

33 records in the Department database. Subsequent notifications shall be to owners of developed

34 property for which there is no record of publicly-owned or investor-owned sewer connection.

35 Cd) Evaluations shall be conducted by licensed septic tank contractors, environmental health

36 professionals certified in the area of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, or licensed

37 professional engineers. Persons conducting evaluations shall complete Department approved

38 trainings on the evaluation process and wettest season water table determination and pass

39 examinations on the trainings with a score of at least 80%. Employees under the direct

40 supervision and control of engineers or septic tank contractors may conduct evaluations provided

41 both the employee and the supervising contractor or engineer have successfully completed the

42 Department-approved training. The employee as well as the supervising contractor or engineer

43 must sign the evaluation report. Any violation by the employee shall constitute a violation by

44 the supervising contractor or engineer. Employee is defined as a person who receives

45 compensation from and is under the supervision and control of an employer who regularly

46 deducts the F.I.C.A. and withholding tax and provides workers' compensation, all as prescribed

47 by law.

48 1. The training on the evaluation process shall be approved in accordance with the

49 Department Policy on Requirements for Continuing Education Courses and Course Providers

50 and shall include 6 hours of instructional time comprised ofthe following subjects:

51 a. statutory and rule requirements;

52 b. form completion and reporting;

53 c. field procedures; and

54 d. standards of practice.

55 2. The training on wettest season water table determination shall be approved in accordance

56 with the Department Policy on Requirements for Continuing Education Courses and Course

57 Providers and shall include 6 hours of instructional time comprised ofthe following subjects:

58 a. soil color determination and documentation;

59 b. soil color contrast determination and documentation;

60 c. wettest season water table feature identification, quantification and documentation;

61 d. determining soil texture in the field; and

62 e. proper use of soil surveys.

2

63 3. Persons who successfully complete the Department-approved training on soils morphology

64 that is required for persons being certified under 381.0101, F.S., and for becoming master septic

65 tank contractors may substitute that training for the training required in subparagraph 2.

66 (e) The evaluation report shall be made on Form DH ####, System Evaluation Report,

67 ##/2010, herein incorporated by reference. The evaluator is responsible for submitting the report

68 and required report fee to the Department postmarked within 10 business days of completion of

69 the evaluation. Electronic submission of the report to a Department-approved data system is

70 allowed. Where the evaluator uses electronic submission, reports must be filed within 10

71 business days with monthly payment of the reporting fee by the 10th business day of each month.

72 The evaluator, with the written approval of the owner, may conduct a more in-depth and

73 complete evaluation of the system. Nothing in this section limits the amount of detail an

74 evaluator may provide.

75 (f) All treatment receptacles shall be pumped. A pump out is not required when

76 documentation of a pump out in the previous five years includes the capacity and condition of

77 the tank.

78 (g) The evaluator shall visually inspect the tanks for any cracks or leaks or corrosion. The

79 evaluator shall document tank deformities which restrict flow through the system or which

80 prevent lids or manhole covers from being properly installed.

81 (h) The evaluator shall inspect the area of the system for any exposed sewage or effluent.

82 (i) The evaluator shall determine the wettest season water table in accordance with

83 Department rule and policy and record that elevation referenced to a reference point or

84 benchmark on the site. The evaluator shall probe or dig to determine the lowest elevation of the

85 bottom of the drainfield and record that elevation relative to the elevation of the wettest season

86 water table.

87 (2) When the evaluation of the tank interior is completed, the original cap or lid of the tank

88 shall be put back in place, or be replaced with a new cap or lid from an approved septic tank

89 manufacturer if the original one is broken. Tank lids shall be completely sealed and secured as

90 required in paragraph 64E-6.0 13(2)(i), F.A.C. Cap or lid replacement does not require a permit

91 but shall be documented on the evaluation form. Missing or damaged outlet devices or filters

92 shall be replaced. During the pumping, the outlet filter shall be cleaned. If the owner refuses

3

93 permission to make these corrections, the evaluator shall document this on the evaluation form.

94 The Department will issue a notice to correct and, if required, take enforcement action.

95 (3) The Department shall review the system evaluation and, if required, issue a notice to

96 obtain a construction permit to repair the system, modify the system or install a new system.

97 Repairs shall be completed within 90 days of permit issuance. Permits may be extended for one

98 90 day period per s. 64E-6.0 15. Modifications or replacement with new systems shall be

99 completed within 18 months of permit issuance. Permits may be extended for one 90 day period

100 per s. 64E-6.001 or s. 64E-6.003.

101 (a) A repair permit shall be required when:

102 1. The tank is not watertight due to cracks, leaks, or corrosion; or

103 2. The tank has deformed sufficiently to restrict flow through the system or the lids from

104 being properly replaced; or

105 3. There is exposed sewage or effluent on the site.

106 (b) A modification permit shall be required when the bottom of the drainfield does not meet

107 the minimum separation from the wettest season water table as required in s. 381.0065(5)(d),

108 F.S. The modification shall be completed within 18-months of the date of permit issue.

109 (c) A permit to construct a new system shall be required when:

110 1. There is no treatment receptacle; or

111 2. The treatment receptacle is not constructed of sealed concrete block, monolithic concrete,

112 fiberglass, or polyethylene.

113 3. The system includes a cesspool or bottomless tank; or

114 4. There is a direct discharge of sewage or effluent to surface water; or

115 5. The treatment receptacle cannot be accessed because it is beneath a building or obstruction

116 that is not permanently removed prior to the evaluation; or

117 6. The drainfield is beneath a building or obstruction that prevents determination of failure or

118 the separation between the drainfield and the wettest season water table.

119 (5) Installation date shall be based on the most recent final approval of a new system or

120 system modification. If a Department record is not available the installation date shall be based

121 on property appraiser or building Department records.

122 (6) The owner shall make application for a construction permit within 60 days of the notice

123 from the Department to obtain a construction permit.

4

124 (7) Evaluators are responsible for compliance with the standards of section 381.0065, F.S.,

125 and this chapter in conducting and sUbmitting evaluations. Violations committed by the

126 employee of a contractor or engineer shall subject both the employee and the supervising

127 contractor or engineer to penalty. The following actions shall be subject to the following

128 penalties:

129 (a) Failure to conduct the evaluation in accordance with this section. First violation, Letter of

130 Warning and fine up to $500; repeat violation, $500 fine per violation and suspension or

131 revocation of approval to conduct evaluations.

132 (b) Failure to submit reports within timeframes. First violation, Letter of Warning; repeat

133 violation, fine up to $500; additional violation, $500 fine and suspension or revocation of

134 approval to conduct evaluations.

135 (c) False payment statements. First violation, Letter of Warning and fine up to $500; repeat

136 violation, $500 fine per violation and suspension or revocation of approval to conduct

137 evaluations.

138 (d) Failure to complete work within timeframes of contract or abandoning a contract. Letter

139 of Warning and fine up to $500; repeat violation, $500 fine per violation and suspension or

140 revocation of approval to conduct evaluations.

141 C e) Conducting evaluations without being licensed or certified or completing required

142 training. First violation, Letter of Warning and fine up to $500; repeat violation, $500 fine per

143 violation and suspension or revocation of approval to conduct evaluations.

144 CD Practicing fraud or deceit, making misleading or untrue representations. First violation,

145 Letter of Warning and fine up to $500; repeat violation, $500 fine per violation and suspension

146 or revocation of approval to conduct evaluations.

147 (g) Absence of any violation from this section shall not be construed as an indication that no

148 penalty is to be assessed.

149 (8) In addition to the penalties of this section, complaints may be issued and disciplinary

150 action may be taken under the provisions of law and rule under which an evaluator is licensed or

151 certified.

152 (9) Any septage disposal service or person who illegally disposes of septage pumped from a

153 system shall be subject to an administrative fine, corrective action, and suspension or revocation

154 of their license or permit.

5

155 (10) Owners who do not comply with provisions of this section shall be subject to citations,

156 administrative fines, and other legal remedies.

6

# 10-06 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: Existing Systems

Rule Sections: 64E-6.001

Printed 9/13/2010 10:16:33 AM

Current language has been amended and re-amended and is confusing

Gerald Briggs, DOH

The proposed changes simplifies the language related to existing systems and modifications

1 0-06--64E-6. 00 1_ Existin9_ System_standards. doc (See Attached)

Simplifies the language related to existing system modification.

Standards are not changing significantly. 1/15/2009 7/15/2010 7/15/2010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 7/15/10 TRAP suggested several typo corrections and a like-for-like

specification. Also TRAP requested an underline/overstrike document.

Ready for Rule D In Rule D Rule Date:

I Extensive revision of 64E-6.001. Strike all existing language and insert the following: 2 64E-6.001 General 3 (I) This chapter applies statewide except where specific law or parts of this chapter provide an 4 exception. This chapter must be used with Chapter 381, Chapter 386, and pmt III of Chapter 489, FS. 5 (2) Structures for human occupancy, employment or service to the public and locations where people 6 congregate, such as construction sites, fairs, and field locations for agricultural workers shall provide 7 approved wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Except for the provisions of Rule 64E-6.0 10 I, 8 permanent structures shall not rely upon the use of holding tanks and portable toilets for wastewater 9 treatment and disposal.

10 (3) Any change to the conditions under which the system was permitted and approved and placed into II use requires the owner to apply for re-approval of the system by the DOH county health department. It is 12 the applicant's responsibility to provide documentation of any prior department approval. An applicant 13 must complete Form DH 4015, 08/09, Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Application for 14 Construction Permit, herein incorporated by reference, and provide a site plan in accordance with 15 paragraph 64E-6.004(3)(a),F.A.C. 16 (a) An existing system evaluation and site evaluation is required. All system tanks must be pumped by 17 a permitted septage disposal service and certified by a state licensed septic tank contractor, a professional 18 engineer, or a certified environmental health professional. A pump out is not required if a system has been 19 pumped out in the previous five years and the pump out documentation provides tank capacity and 20 condition. To be certified tanks must be watertight, constructed of approved material, free of visible 21 defects that impact the operation of the system, have lids and manholes that properly seal, and have an 22 approved outlet device or filter. 23 (b) In reviewing applications consideration shall be given to both the permitted capacity and the current 24 capacity of the existing system per the system size determinations of Rule 64E-6.008. 25 (c) Non-load bearing structures, such as a concrete patio floor, are allowed to cover the septic tank, 26 provided that access to the tank is provided. The structure above the tank shall have a minimum opening of 27 225 square inches at each end of the tank for access. A barrier of soil or plastic shall be used between the 28 tank and non-load bearing structure. 29 (d) A residence or establishment that currently exceeds lot flow allowances shall not be allowed to 30 increase sewage flow. 31 (e) Drainfield installed prior to January I, 1983, shall meet a minimum 6-inch separation from the 32 wettest season water table elevation. Drainfields installed on or after January I, 1983, shall meet a 33 minimum 12-inch separation from the wettest season water table. 34 (4) If the existing system cannot be approved for the proposed use the owner shall obtain a construction 35 permit for modification of the system from the county health department in accordance with Rule 64E-36 6.004, F.A.C. The following standards shall apply: 37 (a) Drainfields installed prior to January I, 1983, shall meet a minimum 12-inch separation from the 38 wettest season water table elevation. Drainfields installed on or after January I, 1983, shall meet a 39 minimum 24-inch separation from the wettest season water table. 40 (b) For residences that add sewage flow the drainfield must meet current rule size requirements for the 41 proposed estimated sewage. 42 (c) For commercial or institutional establishments: 43 I. A system out of service for more than one year shall be brought into compliance with new system 44 standards. 45 2. A system shall require modification if the domestic sewage flow increase is more than 20% of 46 current system capacity or requires more than one tank size adjustment. 47 3. An increase in commercial sewage flow shall require compliance with new system standards. 48 (d) Existing tanks must be within one size of the requirements of Table II. 49 (e) The installation ofa laundry system, a gray water system, a grease interceptor, or additional 50 drain field as a precautionary measure is considered a modification to the system. 51 (5) If an owner requests an evaluation of a system that is not required by law or rule, the department 52 Procedure for Voluntary Assessment of Existing Systems, May, 2000, herein incorporated by reference, is 53 required. The assessment does not guarantee system performance. Nothing in this section shall be 54 construed to limit the amount of detail an evaluator may provide. Persons allowed to perform work under 55 this section shall be state licensed septic tank contractors, professional engineers, and persons certified 56 under section 381.010 I, F.S. Department employees are excluded from performing these evaluations.

57 Aerobic treatment units and performance-based treatment systems shall be evaluated by an approved 58 maintenance entity. Nothing in this section restricts the person having ownership, control, or use of an 59 onsite sewage treatment and disposal system from requesting a pal1ial assessment. The evaluator shall 60 provide the person requesting the assessment a copy of the depal1ment Procedure for Voluntary 61 Assessment of Existing Systems and written notice of their right to request an assessment based on part or 62 all of the standards. 63 (6) The department may impose a fine by an administrative complaint or citation for any violation of 64 381.0065,381.0067, chapter 386, part IJl of chapter 489, or 64E-6. Citations issued by the department 65 shall be on Form DH 3146, 11102, Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Programs/San italY Nuisance, 66 hereby incorporated by reference. 67 (7) All materials incorporated herein may be obtained from the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs at 68 www.MyFloridaEH.com or 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A08, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1713.

69 Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065 (3)(a), 489.553(3), 489.557(1) FS. Law Implemented 381.0065,381.0067, 70 386.041, 489.553 FS. History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly IOD-6.41, Amended 3-17-92, 1-71 3-95,5-14-96,2-13-97, Formerly IOD-6.D4I, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98,3-22-00,9-5-00,5-24-04,11-26-72 06,6-25-09,4-28-10.

73 74

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

64E-6.001 General7 (1) ·rhe provisions of Part I ofthisThis chapter shall apply to a~I-aFeas-orthe :;tate-applies statewide

except where specific PJ~J~law or etHff-parts of this chapter provide rt-Si*GitiB-IiJ-X-efHp8Hfl-Hl' moditJ.eation-to-thHse-t}FovisioHs~~he-pf{'}visiBn5-{}f.thisan exception. This chapter must be used in conjunEtien-with Chapter 381-and-P-art-Ut, Chapter 386, and part III of Chapter 489, F.-S.

(2) Structures used·or-intended-for human occupancy, employment or service to the public and locations where people congregate, such as construction sites, fairs, and field locations for agricultural workers shall provide approved wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Except for the provisions of Rule 64 E-6.0 1 0 I, .fL;A7(;-,-permanent structures shall not rely upon the use of holding tanks and portable toilets for wastewater treatment and disposal.

(3}CBmbinatien-Bf-eBmmel'eial-anddoHH,,1stics€wage··into-asingle-sysf€lfl-sha:ll-requirethatall-the sewage···he-treated·-as···cBmmel'cialse·,vage;·

(4)Except-as--provided-for inSeetion 38!,00655,-·F,S·;,·-any existing and prior appl'oved· systenl·.vhieh hasheenplacedintouseandwhichremains·insatisfactoryep€Fating·condition shallremain valid-for use u·Hder··the···te·rnlcd3f.the··fule·-and··pennit··under···which··it·was approved; AlteratiBfls··that·change··the· COllditiBns tlntleF-whicl~-t~le-syste-m-wfls-flefmiHeti-fIfl(J-approveti~;ewa!:,,~-€hH f{]cte-I~M-ics-Hf-i·flHeflso-se-wage-nH\·v-wi-lj

f-eql±ire-that-the-fJWHer,-0F-theiF-aHtoorir.e-<4-1'CIJFese-ntati-ve-;-apply-foHInd-t'eceivf-reapPHw-al-04ho-systB-lll-by the-I)QJ~-{'"(HjHty-he-a-Ith-d{.'pflHment,j-)rioF-t{Htfly-aJte-ratiHn-ot~hl,'-StHlctHl'€,-er-syst-€fH;-It: .. t.m .... apj3IicaHt fequ~rthflt-the-d{'fl<1Ftment-consi{ier-the previ 0 HS ~;tl·llcture-'-s-oHlSta&I~BhmeH~mHst"H~cent-approV€d oa-'Hpancy, tRe(3) Any change to the conditions under which the system was permitted and approved and placed into use requires the owner apply for re-approval of the system by the DOH countv health department. It is the applicant's responsibilitv to provide documentation of any prior department approval.. An applicant must provide written docHll1fntatiHn that the ol1~iitf seWl',ge trcatmeHl-and-EHspHSfIt-sys.tem .... wfl5 approved by the department for that previous-HBC+IpHflCY. Afl aptllicant will be required to complete Form DH 4015, 08/09, Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Application for Construction Permit, herein incorporated by reference, and provide a site plan in accordance with paragraph 64E-6.004(3)(a), F .A. C. ,lH-pfBvide .... in.tofll·latien-·of::tlle··-site··€,onditions·-under-\vhidl-lhe .. system-·is-cHFrently···in··use-and eHllditiHns-·un der .... \vhich-·it .... 'vv·i·ll·be·used,-::rhe-applicflill-shallh-ave-al·1

(a) An existing system evaluation and site evaluation is required. All system tanks must be pumped by a permitted septage disposal service7""A--reg-istered- and certified by a state licensed septic tank contractor, state-lieellscd·pluIHbel~;-peFSOn€.ertHted""HndeF-SectioH-}8-~70l0h--F,.s·,-;-0r-mastcF-Set)tic-t-ank-c .. ontHlctor-shali deteFlllille-the-tmlk-.voltHne~aHd-shal~""~1eJ~}erln-a-v-isual-illspeBtion-of-l:he-tanl<i:-whell-the-tank .... is-€lHply-to detect·anj'"observable·defccls··of··leaks·jn·thc·tank,···::rhc··tank··volufne-shall-be··obtained·.ffBH1-thc.··t-ank··Iegend HfshaHbccaleulatedfFOUlmeaSUFedinternaltankdimensioflS-.fer··lengtll;·widthanddepthtothcliquid .j·e·'I"ellinc··-or··fromthe···measured··oHtside·diulensionsforlength--Gndwidth··minus-the·waHthiekness···anddepth to the liquid level line, FHr odd shapcd tanks-and tanks withButa !cgend;Hleteredwatertlowsfronlthe refilling··-ofthe· tank·· fnay··hc·-Hsed· in··lieu· Bf·nlea sHredinsidcoroutsidetallkdirHC!lSioHs,·Theperson perfoFmingtheiI15pection·shallsubmitthe·results·totheDOlleountyhealthdepartnlCntaspartofthe fIpIJl~{*tiHn-Hsi ng-t)age-4-ot::"I:;:Hfm-gl=l-4G-l ... S,""..J-f:. .. a-pfi(+F ... aj31JFOVBfl-e~ist-~nb'-Systeln-has-bceIHlppFHW(+-l~y-the p.ql+t<J HHty-h l'<1-lth-{{epm"tmeHt-within-(-h{.LpfeCeding-thl'€{>-yeaFS7-f1+1El-the-%ystem-\vas-detenfl~H€-d-k')-~K>....iH sHtis.fact.Hf).Lojx'·rating ... {,'+}n4itioH-at-#taH+me;-a .... lwW .... insIJeetion-iS-llHt-R'qHiH~tl-HHless-theFe-is-a-reeeF(;i-(}f 4:aill±Fe-Hf+h{l...syste-m .. ,-lf-it-i5-{4ctBfmined-that"iHKlW-iHSiJe€tiHn-is-l~HH'€tju.jFel:J.-HHly-j~l€-alctlctlk'ittion ... fee-shflll he ... ehfH'ge-d-fBl'-thts-clpp.J.iffitiHn-aHd-aj3PffiVfH~m1He-r-0ial-system-{,}HH:)f .. sel:viCl.L.:f{-)H110fe-tl~flH-oH€--yeflF sha .. J.1-+x'-bFought-iflte ... :fuJ.1-eomrHanee-with-C+1Hent I'eq II i re m€fJts-(.)-f..th+s-el'lflPteF-flI~F-to-the-systet"H-\)ei+t.'.2; l*la>d-i+lffi-se-rv-ia~Rt.'-Hse-\tf..a .. building is ch,mged or if l',flElitiHftS-Hl"-alt*'ffifions to a bH~ldHlb>-aFe-made­'vvllich--\.vill increase dome'itie ,icwage flow, chaHgC--5{,'Wage eharC',€tefis4~CS;-fH:...ctHnpFHmi5e-tlN-il1legrity or hmetion ortlle tiy:;tetn, (he onGite scviHge-tFeatJ.1-Hmt-and-ditipOsal sYGte-m-servin§,L-fTH€h-lwtkiing shall be Iwough tin to rul!-€-0Htpliance-w-itll-t:he-j:~fBvi-s-iHHS-flnd req Hi remen+s-H.f..these-FH4BS. Pr~W€-J.l...se+b-a€ks-shal! be-t1lfliHtfHHeth-IlffiH'-tO-aHy-tnHd if,cation 0 r the systeffi,the-owner sha~1y-t8HlHd-(,)ht-affi-a pcrmi tj(~f lHOdin(~at-ioH-tJf'~lhe~s:ystenl .... li'oJll-the-CHullty··heallIl-deparHHC.f,t-i·n··aecol'dance··willl-R llle64E .... o70Q'·l,F,i\-,C, ::j~he-·pernlit-shal·I··bc-valid-for .. ··1·8-m ontlls-koIH-tlle-date-of-issue·,····Where-bui I ding'-eollstruet-ionhas cOIHlneneBd,it--shall-be--valid .... foF-an-additional-90-days,-Neeessarysite .... ifwestigations·-andtesb-shall··be perfonFled .. at-Hle·expellse·-Hf.the-owner-by·eitller-an-engincer·-\N·itl+seibtraining--whH is lieellsed·-in-thcstate ofFlorida-pursuant-tH .. C'1.lapteF-4+.h-F-.-S~,-Tegisteredsep(i eta nk-eontraelftrs,-IHnstcl'-septic.+ank-eontFactoFs.; of-persollS·eertified-·Ullder-Sectiftll··J8-J·,·O·IOl,--F,S·,·,·or-departlnent-personnel-IDr-the-appropr·iale-fec-spec~tied

in Section 381,0066, FS,a professional engineer, or a celiitied environmental health professional. A pump

57 out is not required if a system has been pumped out in the previous five years and the pump out 58 documentation provides tank capacity and condition. To be certified tanks must be watertight, constructed 59 of approved material, free of visible defects that impact the operation of the system, have lids and manholes 60 that properlv seal, and have an approved outlet device or filter. 61 (-a)-J2er-l'esfeerH7e.s,-·tlows-shall-be.-c--ak-ulatee-using--rHwf-systerH-c-Fiteria-foF-beEirooHlsanehuilding-area, 62iH€luEl-ing-existing-stru€tufe-s-anfl-any-preposee-aEld-itiens:-T-{lhle--I·{lnd-leotHotes-shall-app~y-;-FoH)xa+nple-,-a 63 €HfFe.ntctlwee·hefIFooHl,-I.JOO-square-foot-homewoule-Oe-able-to-afld-hl~i.jding-aFea-to-havea-total-o:f~-2-50

64 square-reet-of:.tJuikling-area-w-ith-nQ-{7haHge-in-their-apt1-roveEl--syste.Hl,provided-no-aEiditiol1a~-bedrooms-aFe

6 5 adeed-:-No-pa~i-f}t:-the-e-xisting-·stHlGture,or-the--addition-to--tlIc-stH1Gtufe-shaH-be-allBwea-tQ-{7OVer-anypart-Bf

66 thesystelH,·(b) In reviewing applications consideration shall be given to both the permitted capacity and the 67 current capacity ofthe existing system per the system size determinations of Rule 64E-6.008. 68 (flNon-load bearing structures, such as a concrete patio floor, are allowed to cover the septic tank, 69 provided that access to the tank is providedfor·-nlaintenanee. The structure above the septie··tank shall have 70 a minimum opening of225 square inches at each end of the septietank for accessintothe-tank,··The 7 I MFuetureshaJJ··not·heindirceteontactw·jtn.·the··tank. A barrier of soil or plastic shall be used between the 72 tank and non-load bearing structure.-J2eH-J.H-ts·e-fe&if:Jences4a!-a4i-sBwagl'-4lH\~i€-&)'&t:efH-&ha.J-I-13e 73 r-equil'e8-te-btHt~-t-Hieet the follm'iing--cr-iteriw.-7 4 ~-;-::Fh-0-Sept-i e-taHk-llreti-nBt-Be-rej~.1f.l.-tf-it-is-stHJf7ttH'iJl~y-soHHd--and-i-s-w-ithin-Hne....fH ru~i;>:-(."'-Bf.the

75 R'qt±treEl~€fttiel-tS-fHl:Ind-in"'::l~ble-+l,foHlle-ttF(4flfl-S{.-'fktHi€t-t~-n-apfJl'&ved-oHtjet-fHtef-ShaJI-~e 7 6 j.HStaHed-iH)fle-i&-eurcR:Hltty-Jt(:tt--itl-fJlac~

77 2-:-+lH..,L.€HHftty-h-ealth-depal't111enkhall-l-etrutre-the-e-hlsttHf:.>-drain-fie-I,J-R+-Be-inereas€4-to-eHH-eHt-Fl:Ile 78 drainfit4d size reql1iremen~~, for the proposed eSIimaK>tl-sewage-flow ulling the appl'0fJriate-5oi.J-l.oa.d.i.Jtg-fffie 79 and sizing criteria R*-lle-w-sysl-eH1s .. , .... \Vhere the existing elevation of [he-bouom surfaee of the drainfieJ4..i5 80 .J.es.s...than 21 inehe~; above the W€t-&ea5f.m-high water table.the-b<-ttt<.-tm(d) A residence or establishment that 8 I currently exceeds lot flow allowances shall not be allowed to increase se\vage flow. 82 (4) Tfthe existing system cannot be approved for the proposed the owner shall obtain a construction 83 permit for modification of the system from the county health department in accordance with Rule 64E-84 6.004, F.A.C. The following standards shall apply: 85 (a) For residences that add sewage flow the drain field must meet current rule size requirements for the 86 proposed estimated sewage. The bottom of the drainfield shall meet minimum separation requirements of 87 381.0065, FS, from the wettest season water table. 88 (b) For commercial or institutional establishments: 89 1. A system out ofthedrainfieklshallbemailltainedattbeexistingseparationoranlininlumof·12 90 indles···above···the-\vet··season··b·j·gh···water·table;··wh·j·c·hever··js···greateL 9 I 3 , .. Where-the bottorn ofthe·erainfield·is-less than 12 inehes abo vethewetseasonhign.water-tabkthe 92 clrainfieldservice for more than one year shall be brought into full compliance with aHnewsystem 9 3 standard,,;·as·leng-as···it··j.s-the···intentof·theapplieanttoproceed:.,vith·the·aeditiento·theresidence, 94 4·; Any··system··wlwrethe··tank··needs··to··be·--replaeed ·or··is··replaeedaspart·ofa··systcm··upgradeshall··he 95 brought-in{-o-fu11-€Olllplianc-ll....\v-it1l-aJI-new system spe{;'i-fieat-iHl1f,standards. 96 (h}-!-'*)r-eHmfHel'6ial-estahlishmel1t'5-::-t~ie2. A system sha II HHt ... h{Lf'*!,tir£<J-tohe-altered-if-req u i re 97 modification if the domestic sewage flow is-liOt-BK-pe€t-{-'-d-lo-itK-'rew;e by increase is more than 20% of 98 {}F~ginH1-tles·~gn-flHw-current system capacity or l'€ql:l~t'e-reguires more than one tank size adjustment. A 99 depfll1:tlle.!lt--appmve-rJ-HHt.Jet-fiJtCf-{Wvi{'-0-&lii:lll-+te-inMaHe(H'l:ny-"-'HmmeFeial-s-y-ste·nl-wher",'-t1i{.>.-+ank ... need~;-tH

1 00 be replaced f,h,tll be-hFOltght-i+tlo-ful..kotnpl-ianee ... \v-i{~+-a~l-Hew ,.,Ylltem stJeCtficatiow;. 1 0 I (-B-)-~·l1e&€-fBq U i re ment" do not-aHthHFir.e-a~ oe Of eE, tab lis ~1m ent [0 e*Bt'etl-the-l·Ht-llo"V"'H.j~f)Wflflces I 02 flf~lde-l'i*\fi,grapIH~+-f~fA(e), F.A.C. l~l}]-ishHleHts-Htut-E'HHentl)i exceed lot flmv 103 allowartee:; Ghall not be allov,ed 10 inereasc sewage noWo I 04 E<.B....AJ'l)~n which i" used to treat and di"p05€-O-t=to+llHl-effiia.J-was.K-'\-\:.a{er "hall be-hreBght into thH 105 f7fffitPlianee with the provisioos and requirements of eurrent rule:; when--any-ehange..j·fl-s€Wi¥~Hw-Hr I 06 characteF~sti es-is··rnade·, 107 3. An increase in commercial sewage shall require compliance with new svstem standards. 108 (c) Existing tanks must be within one size of the requirements of Table II. I 09 (e) IZepaiF-{)·f-the·systernl{}repairsystelHstaHdardsshall-llot··alte-r·thostandards·foHHd-ill-lhis-suhsettioH I 10 for·existillgcsystclHuse··or·-modifi€·atiofL

2

III 8+ The installation of a laundry system, a gray water system, a grease interceptor, or additional 112 drainfield as a precautionary measure to prolong--s-ysi:cl:n-f'unctioning of Hfl--l,,*i",t-i-ng sy~;t-c-m-is considered a 113 modification to the system. Such in~;tallatffifl i:; not p. n-tOO-tH-ffit-ff:m-~Ht-i~c-iate4-wAA

I 14 (5) r f an owner requests anincFeas-lO-in·esti+nated-sewage-t~owo r .. change··in··sewage .. cllaracteristics;if I 15 tl,e·systeln···i S···ill··failul:e··or·ilc·tl·le··ex·isting-syslefn···i-S-fIHlon··cmnpl-i,Hlcc-with-the .. tcnHs··of .. tl,c--or·igiflal--pel·:nl·it, 1 16i Hwllfc.h·casc--it··wi·II-·he",cHns-idercd··a:··flcws-ystenl: 1 17 (g:} .. Wllere the Hlrrcnt-s tnlctu re·exelOeds·the .. design-capaeity .. ·of·tlle··eKisting-systeHh-th lOS ys t {,In·s haHnot 118 bc-allo\ved .... fnr-Hse··with· .. any·addition; 119 (S) .. The··evaluation of a system that is not required by law or rule, the department Procedure for 120 Voluntary IHspection·andAssessment of Existing Systems, May, 2000, herein incorporated by reference, 12 1 shaJJ···be···appl·ied-·eJ>i:ccpti·nsitHat-iolls···pc-rtai·lling-toa Il···incrc-ase··in·!;ewagetlow··O·I:···cllilllge···i·n···sewage 122 characlc-Fist-ic·s·,·or·jE·i·]IH·eof·thc",sji stelH·;··l:Jlc·ill·',·pccli ol,·isdes·ig-n ed···t-oasse·ss··thc···COlld·it·ion···ofa···systcHl···ata 123 part·ienl·ar···nlofHcnt··ill···tinlc·;··-TllC···j nspcction·w·i·I·I···idcn·tifyobvioHsly··suostaIldard···syst c·m·s,··fo·rcxaI11ple 124 systerns··\vithol:ltdl·aiHfi e't:I·s·,···Tlle···i nspe·ction··i S··110t··c\ esigncd·to·dctel·:mi·neprecisc···eode"colllpl·iance;···nOl' 12 5 provide··jnforrnationt-o···deHloI1stl:ate··that+lle···systenl"viill··adequalelyserw··tbe-···\Ise·t-o·be··place·d·U·POIl··it··by 126 th-i~-Hr-rmy--subsc(iHtnh)wHer-js required. The assessment does not guarantee system performance. Nothing 127 in this section shall be construed to limit the amount of detail aninslxletm:evaluator may provide-at-~heiF 128 fWOf{~i(-)na-l-{+ia-'l.·et~oH. Persons allowed to perform work under this section shall be masle-Fstate licensed 129 sept i c tan k co n tractors, r-e-gi-steFCfl--se-ptit .. 1:f1nl,"""coffiFactHl'5-,-Sffit(l-H eensed-phltnh(>.f-s p ro fes s ion a len gin ee rs, 130 and persons certified under g('GtiHH-section 381.0101, F.S. Department employees are excluded from 13 I performing these evaluations. Aerobic treatment units and performance-based treatment systems shall nOt 132 be evaluated usHlg thi~; criteria, but [;hall be evaluated by the--an approved maintenance entity-w4iBl~ 133 lH2.intains the unit or syste·m. Nothing in this section restricts the person having ownership of, control of, or 134 use of an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system from requesting a partial jHSt)€-c-tK~H:assessment. The 135 in5-pe\.,4orevaluator shall provide the person requesting themsj)cGt:if}l1assessment a copy of the department 136 Procedure for Voluntary f.n5pect-ion-affd-Assessment of Existing Systems and written notice of their right to 137 request an insrec-tionassessment based on part or all of the standards. 138 (6) The department may impose a tine by an administrative complaint or citation for any violation of 139 381.0065, 381.0066, chapter 386, part III of chapter 489, or 64E-6. Citations issued by the department 140 shall be on Form DH 3146, 11/02, Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Programs/-Sanitary Nuisance, 141 hereby incorporated by reference. 142 (7) All materials incorporated herein may be obtained from the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs at 143 www.MyFloridaEH.com or 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A08, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1713.

144 Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065 (3)(a), 489.553(3), 489.557(1) FS. Law Implemented 381.0065,381.0067, 145 386.041, 489.553 FS. HistDly-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly IOD-6.41, Amended 3-17-92, 1-146 3-95,5-14-96,2-13-97, Formerly 10D-6.041, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98,3-22-00,9-5-00,5-24-04, 11-26-147 06,6-25-09,4-28-10.

148 149

3

# 10-17 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

Printed 9/13/2010 10:17:54 AM

Subject: Fees

Rule Sections: 64E-6.030

current fees do not address department-conducted mean annual flood line determination or five-year evaluation report. Also, some activities performed by CHD's were not addressed in the fee structure.

Gerald Briggs, DOH

The proposed changes provide a fee for mean annual flood line determination, five-year evaluation reporting, excavation inspections, additional soil profiles.

10-17 --64E-6.00BJees.doc (See Attached)

amends fee structure to reflect services provided by CHD's

Fees increased by $65 for existing system evaluations. $30 fee for five-year evaluation report. 9/7/2010

D D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

64E-6.030 Fees. (I) The following fees are required for services provided by the department. (a) Application and plan review for construction permit for new system. (b) Application and appHlval for existing system, initial review.if;)stem int;pection i:; not reqLlirBth (c) Application and Existing System Evaluation. (d) Application for permitting of a ~performance-based treatment system. (e) Site evaluation§..:. I. Standard site evaluation, does not include mean annual flood line determination. 2. Mean annual flood line determination 3. Additional soil profiles, per two profiles over standard two profiles (f) Site re-evaluation. (g) Permit or permit amendment for new system, modification or repair to system. (h) Research/Training surcharge, new and repair permits. (i) Initial system inspection (excavation or construction inspection). U) System reinspection (stabilization, non-compliance or other inspection after the initial inspection). (k) Application for system abandonment permit, includes permit issuance and inspection. (I) Annual operating permit industrial/manufacturing zoning or commercial sewage waste. (m) Biennial operating permit for aerobic treatment unit or performance-based treatment system. (n) Amendment to operating permit. (0) Tank Manufacturer's Inspection per annum. (p) Septage Disposal Service permit per annum. (q) Portable or Temporary Toilet Service permit per annum. (r) Additional charge per pumpout vehicle, septage disposal service or portable toilet service. (s) Septage stabilization facility inspection fee per annum per facility. (t) Septage disposal site evaluation fee per annum. (u) Aerobic treatment unit maintenance entity permit per annum. (v) Variance Application for a single family residence per each lot or building site. (w) Variance Application for a multi-family or commercial building per each building site. (x) Application for innovative product approval. (y) 5-Year System Evaluation Report Fee (2) The following fees are required to accompany applications for registration of individuals for septic

tank contractor or master septic tank contractor or for a certificate of authorization for partnerships and corporations.

(a) Application for registration including examination. (b) Initial registration. (c) Renewal of registration. (d) Certificate of authorization each two-year period.

1

$100 $35

$will $125

$115 $115

$50 $50 $55

$5 $75 $50 $50

$150 $100

$50 $100

$75 $75 $35

$150 $200

$25 $200

$300

$2500 $30

$75 $100 $100 $250

# 10-19 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: Repair Standards

Rule Sections: 64E-6.01S

Printed 911312010 10:18:16 AM

Repair standards are out of date, complicated and need to reflect SB550 requirements

Dale Holcomb, DOH

The proposed changes simplify the repair standards to meet current system sizing and SB550 water table separation requirements.

10-19--64E-6.015-Repair-Standards.doc (See Attached)

simplifies repair standards, eliminates out-dated requirements, complies with statutory requirements.

will increase costs to oldest failing systems as they will be required to comply with SB550 water table separation requirements. 10/13/2010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

[J

D

1 64E-6.01S Permitting and Construction of Repairs. 2 (1) No person shall cause or allow repair of a system without first applying for a receiving a construction permit. Form 3 DH 4015 shall be used for permit application submission. An application shall be completed in full, signed by the owner or the 4 owner's agent, and accompanied by all required exhibits and fees. The application shall include: 5 .\11 repail"; made to a failing lln:;ite ~jev.-age treatment and di:;posal ';;-stem shall be made only with prior knov.-Iedge and written 6 approval [mm the DOH county health department havingjuri:;diction over the system. Approval :;hall be granted unly if aiI-(+[ 7 th-e--+t-H-Illwi ng condition:; are met: 8 (I) ,\ny proper~y H'.Yner or le:;:;ee v,'ho fHts.--aa~~~;ev,·age treatment and dir;po:;al ~;y:;tem which i:; improperly clln~;~ructed 9 Llr maintained, HI' which fail:; to functiHn in a :;afe HI' ~;anitary manner ,;hall request fmm the DOll county health department,

10 etthef-directly or tffiough their agent, a permit to repair the-~prior to initiating -rerttif--o+-the .;)stem. ,\ permit..J~ 11 ~BB-~HB-·Q#-4{.)-Ui~+ffil~Hh-e--:;OOIfti.s.s.jBf1-0+-dfHtFFlicatiHn accompanied by-tf!&n-e£e:;:;ary exhibit; and feer;,~p'Bfffi 12 [)II '1015 :;hall be w;ed fur thi:; FlHfl~8:\R-.be obtained fmm thetl€t*H'tment. .\pplication:; -&l-1a+I~Bmta+n-the follov,ing 13 in formation: 14 (a) A site plan showing property dimensions, the existing and proposed system configuration and location on the property, 15 the building location, potable and non-potable water lines, within the existing and proposed drainfield repair area, the general 16 slope of the property, property lines and easements, any obstructed areas, any private or public wells, or any surface water 17 bodies and stormwater systems in proximitywithin the setbacks of Table V to the onsite sewage system which restricts 18 replacement or relocation of the drainfield system. The exi:;ting drainfield type :;hall be described. For examplo, mineral 19 aggregate, non mineral L~ggregate, chamber';, or ~ 20 (b) An Existing System and System Repair Evaluation completed on Form DH 4015, A signed tank certification from a 21 permitted septage disposal service providing all tank information required on the form including the certification statement 22 may be submitted for that portion of the form. The existing drain field type shall be described .. The size of the :;epti(;;tan*-Bf 23 8thef-treatment tank currently in use and the approximate square rootage and elevation of the-drain field exi:;ting on the *i-teo 24 (c) A site evaluation completed on Form DH 4015. Elevation of the proposed system site must be consistent with the 25 "existing grade" elevation on the Existing System and System Repair Evaluation submitted. Soil textures and wettest season 26 water table elevations must be documented within the existing and proposed drainfield areas. Any conditions or obstructions, 27 such as roof drains, patios, parking areas, or pools, which may impact the system design or function shall be noted. The quantit) 28 and lype of waste being discharged to the :;ystem. Vihere water u:;e records cannot be obtained, e:;~imates ';hall be made from 29 values found in Rule 64E 6,()Og, Table I, f7d\'C 30 (d) When available, water use records for the previous 24 months.The :iLlil texture'; encountered within the e)(i:;~ing and 31 rrupor;ed drain field area:;, and the e~;timated water table during the wette;t :;ea:;on urthe year. 32 (e) An-y-unusual ';ite condi~ion:; which may influence the system de:;ign or function :;uch as ,;loring property, drainage 33 strtl€tttre:; ,;uch a.; roofdrain.i or curtain drain:;, and any obstructiom; :;uch as patios, decks, :;wimming pools or parking aFei:t'r.

34 (f) The pefSBfl-flerfonnin-g-the 3ite eyaluation :;hall prO\ide a Iffi.e.f-description of the nature &fthe failure which i" 35 occurring. 36 (2) Site evaluations nece:;sary to obtain the above referenced information sha-l-l-~l7e-cunducted at the expense of the o' .... ner or 37 ~ee by department personnel, by an engineer ',>,ho it; licensed in ~he State of Florida ef-by other Ljualified per::ons as per 38 subsection ME 6.004(3), F.A.C. Site .;pecific information may be obtained by the applicant through e)(amination ofdepartlTI€fH 39 recurd" orpermits previously iGsued for the site. 40 f-B-When a repair is to be performed on a failing system in wl,ich the con-tractor will be using any method other than 41 drainfield addition or replacement, the following additional permit application information shall be submitted to the county 42 health department: department by the cuntractor in addition to the information required in :;ubsection:; 6/1 E 6.0 15( I) and (2), 43 ¥A,G. 44 WL The process used to repair the system. Examples include high-pressure water jetting of drainlines and high-pressure 45 injection of air alongside the drainfield. Such information :;hall include the manner in ' .... hich the proposed repaif-vlill take 46 p+a€€-;-The manufacturers recommended method for product use, quantities and concentration of product, shall be included in 47 this information. 48 (bj2., Any chemical compound to be introduced into the system in an effort to repair the system shall be identified by 49 chemical composition or trade name, including the concentration and quantity of product used. The method of product 50 introduction shall be stated. For example, product introduced through the distribution box. 51 f€11, Any repair method proposed which intends to physically disrupt the absorption surface shall include a drawing 52 diagram of the drainfield system that includes a diagram of the :;iteswith the locations where the absorption surface will be 53 disrupted. The depth of each disruption shall be recorded at each :;itenoted at each location. 54 (42,) When the original installation date of the system requiring repair is before January I, 1983, and the Where the 55 absorption surface of the drainfield is within 116 inches of the wettest season high water table, the existing drainfield shall be 56 removed and a replacement shall be installed at least 12 inches above the wettest season water table. When the original 57 installation date of the system requiring repair is on or after January 1, 1983, and the absorption surface of the drainfield is 58 within 24 inches of the wettest season high water table, the existing drainfield shall be removed and a replacement shall be 59 installed at least 24 inches above the wettest season water table., an alternatiye repair method addre:;:;ed in subsection 64F 60 6o-G 15(3), v.A.C., ~;hall not be used, The existing drain field :;hall be rem8¥€J~an4-a-...Rreplacement drainfield§ "hall be in:;talled

1

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

in accordance with all other repair criteria, including 3eparatfon from ,;ea,;onal high water table and drainfield sizing. Paragraph ~() 15(6)(8, F.A.G., shall be used to determine septic tank conformance.

(~1) :I-+te-department ,;hall make ewry effHfHo issue a permit within 2 working day,; after receiving the application for .;y,;tem repair. Repair permits shall be valid for 90 days from the date of issuance. However, if the system is maintained to not create a sanitary nuisance, a repair permit shall be extended for one 90 day period.

(61) Clln,;truction material,; w;ed in sy:;tem repairs shall be of the same quali~y a,; [ho:,e required for new ,;ystem con:;truction. Aggregate and soil in spoil material from drainfield repairs shall not be used in system repair in any manner. Undamaged infiltration units, pipes and mechanical components may be reused on the original site. Any spoil material taken off site shall be disposed of in a permitted landfill or shall be limed and stockpiled for at least 30 days to prevent a sanitary nuisance. Offsite spoil material stockpile areas shall meet the prohibition requirements of subsection 62-701.300(2), F.A.C. The resulting lime-treated material shall not be used for drainfield repair, or construction of any onsite sewage treatment and disposal system. Any use of the lime treated material shall not cause a violation of Chapter 386 F.S., and shall not impair groundwater or surface water. Mineral aggregate and soil in spoil material may, at the option of the septic tank contractor and the property owner, be buried on site if limed before burial. Lime amount must be sufficient to preclude a sanitary nuisance. Depth of seasonal high water table to the spoil material must be at least twelve ~ inches. Setbacks for buried spoil material shall be the same as for onsite sewage treatment and disposal system drain fields. A minimum of six inches of slightly or moderately limited soil shall cover the spoil material and shall extend to at least five feet around the perimeter of the burial site.

ffiAny failing system shall, at a minimum, be repaired in accordance with the following criteria: (a) System repairs shall comply with minimum setbacks and separations as specified in Rule 64E-6.005, F.A.C. If current

required setbacks and separations cannot be met, lesser setbacks as specified in Table V shall be maintained. For repairs only, if current required setbacks given below cannot be attained, absolute minimum setbacks shall be met. When site conditions exist which allow either absolute or current required setbacks to various features, current required setbacks shall be maintained from features with the highest protection factor. Setbacks to features with lower protection factors shall be reduced to the maximum setback or separation attainable, with no less than the absolute minimum setback allowed. A standard gravity flow system is to be used when possible to achieve the appropriate separations of absorption surface to seasonal high water and effective soil depth.

TABLE V Repair System Setback Requirements

Permit Date Description Protection Factor

Current Required Setback

Absolute Minimum Setback

of Original of System Setback

I 172

(Separation)

----;s~' ;>p':,':'rt<,te~nR'l-tt&o-aac-lP"-tr+,i\h:'aiBte8--- -- &­Potable 'ke"

- ~. -- -------------------

75 feet Greatest 0 f the Following: a) Maximum Setback «75 feet

------·~·---~~-ttflti..>50 feet) b) Original Setback (if>50 feet) c) 50 feet

-~--------___&mt}ffi_()f Drainfield ~-~-~ ----z2~II--li_nn€chF\;e~s;__--~Gff<reBia±ftece'-;f;t-fo)-ff+thnee

-i~on Surface Following: --- -----!&Wet Season 'kater a) [l..4aximum

---.- ·----------+I-a·a&b~le'------- ----·---~-~----------~·-----~S'>€'efFlp-aaIRl·aft1ti!f)ofin

---------------E>-l..16 inche:;) --b}-Grfgifla-l Separa~ion (if>126

c) 126 inches

Effec~ive Soil Depth II? inches Greatest 0 f the Po II 0 wi_ngc­a) 2(1 inche:;

---------------------b) Maximulll ---------.~----- ---?lS-8lepBiaifra1atftjilcHmt-(bC>"-Ilcr2

inches)

2

120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

c) 12 im7Re;;

----

-~Swy*l~;t~elffil1-Btl+-l ~SLlHlr'fi:faLCce-e __ ~__L'+_I -----J~-(+_) reet-----Grei:'test of the Water Following:

a) l\ Iaximum Setback (>2S feet

--~------~-~---------------~-----~-------_i:lfl4 /SO feet) ----~-------~------------------ ~ b) ()riginal

Setback (if/'S ----~ ------------------feet:)

-----~--~-------~~~-~---~---~.-----~~. -~

System fe---------+ >ion Plltable Well

----~--- Greatest-t+f4€ Follov.ing: a) ~,laxiRluRl Setback (>2S feet and < S () feet) bJ Original

------------~----- Setback (if"2S ----------~-----~~~------fee8

c) 2S feet ~~ ~-----------~--~-~~~~ -~~~-~ ------

Drainfield Sidewall" -4-fe€t--------+J-fe-ate5t-8f'thB ~-----H-t&,>;ta!-~of Slope _~ ____ ~ ________ ~ ____ n Following:

a) ~. IaxiRluRl -------------- --~------------- --Separation C-~>2.S

feet)

-

Sy,;teRl to Property Line or Building

----------- F llunclalion

Prior~--t-H System to a Private to Potable Well 1-1-198312 3~

Bottom of Drainfield Absorption Surface to Wet Season Water Table

Effective Soil Depth

6

5

5

- ---

~------+JGfRre*laf€te~st:-fo+f'f_ffthtee

Fllilowing: a) l\[(u(imum

~ ----------- --~Setback

(>2 feet) b) 2 feet

75 feet

24 inches

42 inches

3

Greatest of the Following:

Setback «75 feet and >50 feet) b) Original Setback (if>50 feet) c) 50 feet

Greatest of the Following: a) Maximum Separation «24 inches and> l1a inches) b) Original Separation (if> l1a inches) c) l1a inches

Greatest of the Following: a) 36 inches

a) Maximum

180 b) Maximum 181 Separation 182 (> 24 inches) 183 c) 24 inches 184 185 System to Surface 4 75 feet Greatest of the 186 Water Following: 187 a) Maximum 188 Setback «75 feet 189 and >50 feet) 190 b) Original 191 Setback (if>50 192 feet) 193 c) 50 feet 194 195 System to 3 50 feet Greatest of the 196 Non-Potable Well Following: 197 a) Maximum 198 Setback «50 feet 199 and >25 feet) 200 b) Original 201 Setback (if>25 202 feet) 203 c) 25 feet 204 205 Drainfield Sidewall 2 4 feet Greatest of the 206 to Start of Slope Following: 207 a) Maximum 208 Separation 209 (>~; feet) 210 b)~; feet 211 212 System to Property 5 feet Greatest of the 213 Line or Building Following: 214 Foundation a) Maximum 215 Setback 216 (>2 feet) 217 b) 2 feet 218 219 1-1-83 to System to a Private 6 75 feet 75 feet 220 Present Potable Well 221 222 Bottom of Drainfield 5 24 inches 24 inchesC;;reate!;t 8~tHe 223 Absorption Surface Fllllov;ing: 224 to Wet Season Water a) Existing 225 Table elevation 226 (> 12 incHes) 227 f1:}-12 incHes 228 229 Effective Soil Depth 5 42 inches Greatest of the 230 Following: 231 a) Maximum 232 Separation (>36 233 inches) 234 b) 36 inches 235 236 System to Surface 4 75 feet Greatest of the 237 Water Following: 238 a) Maximum 239 Setback (if>50

4

240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283

System to Non-Potable Well

Drainfield Sidewall To Start of Slope

to Start of Slope

System to Property Line or Building Foundation

Footnotes to Table V:

3 50 feet

2 4 feet

5 feet

feet) b) 50 feet

50 feet

Greatest of the Following: a) Maximum setback (>24 feet b)2 feet

Greatest of the Following: a) Maximum Setback (if>2 feet) b) 2 feet

I. For sites which contain oolitic limestone, the minimum effective soil depth shall be 12 inches regardless of the date the original system was installed provided that the wet season water table is a minimum of 4 feet below the bottom surface of the drainfield.

2. Where severely limited soil underlies the drainfield, soil removal and replacement shall be performed as per Footnote 3. to Table III.

(b) Where the cause of system failure is determined to be from root clogging or physical damage of the distribution box or drainfield field ofa system, and where removal of the root mass and restoration of the damaged drainfield will restore the system to its original design function, upon permitting, inspection and verification of the repair work by the health unit, permit satisfaction will be considered to be achieved.

(£lFor systems receiving domestic wastewater and originally permitted within 10 years of repair permit application date,un or c.fter January I, 1983, if the system failure is due to excessive hydraulic loading, the original permitted drainfield shall be allowed to remain in service but shall have additional drainfield added to it. The resulting system drainfield size shall be 20~ percent larger than the drainfield originally permitted, or shall be in compliance with drainfield sizing criteria specified in Rules 64E-6.008 and 64E-6.009, F.A.C., whichever is larger.

@f€1 For systems receiving domestic wastewater and originally permitted more than 10 years prior to the repair permit application date, Mm-i-m-um sizing of drain field repaiE; fur re:3idential :;y:;telTI!; installed prior to 1983 f3hall be bw;ed on the criteria specified below. F failed drainfields shall be replaced with drainfields of the same size as the existing drainfields or meeting the sizing criteria specified in Rules 64E-6.008 and 009, F.A.C., whichever is larger, at a minimum, the f3izing efi.tef-i-a ~eci fied belew.

I. Ir~;ufficient area is available, the exit;ting drainfield can be left in place and Ut;ed a·; part of the ?):5tem. A new drainfield equal in ·;ize to, and ·;eparate from, the exi:;ting drainfield ';hC'.1I be added and flow directed tu buth the old and nev, drain field.

2. Table-VI and VII value:; are for ,;ub:;urface and filled system:; if the exi:;ting drainfield cannot be Ut;ed a:; par!. of the repair. !\[ound trench sy:;tem:; shall be :;ized 10 percent larger than the value:; below and 20 percent larger ifab:;orption bed:; are in:;talled in the mound. The amount of drain field in:;talled during the repair ';hall not be Ie.;:; than the amount the f;y:;tem had priLlr to the repair.

TARLE VI Residential Sizing fur Slightly-Limited Soil Texture:;

NtIfl1-9ef-B+ Redruoms

-I-2

4 Add per -bWBBfH

Square Feet uf Trench Area

B ~

28 ~

B

5

Square Feet of Absorptiun Bed

-l-OO 200 ;00

400 -I-OO

TAHLF VII Residential Sizing H)r r.loJerately Limited SeH-+~

Number or Bedroom:;

+ ;6

4 Atltl-fler bedroom

Square Feet of Trench ,\rea

+44 ~ ;00

LW4 ~OO

Square Feet or Ab:;orption Bcd

+B ~

lli ;WQ

+B

284 (d) Repairs of systems receiving commercial wastewater commercial ';y~;tem:; installed prior to 199] shall be based on the 285 following criteria: 286 I. Sewage flows shall be determined from values found in Table I of Rille 64E-6.008 or from documented water-use 287 records, whichever is higher. In determining the sewage flow from documented water use records, the applicant shall choose 288 one of the following:, F.AC, or un the second highe~;t monthly flO'.\ for the preyiLlw; 1 g2 i ! month period from documented 289 water w;e records, whichever is higher. 290 a. The highest monthly flow for the previous 18-month period. 291 b. The fourth-highest monthly flow for the previous 24-month period. In order to discard the most recent month of water-292 use data, the applicant shall provide documentation of the reason that the month was unusually high and that the excessive 293 water use has been corrected. 294 2. Drainfield loading shall not exceed 0.00015 pounds combined CBODS and TSS per square feet per day based on 295 treatment receptacle effluent samples. 296 3. Drainfield loading shall not exceed the maximum loading rates in Rules 64E-6.008 and 009, F.A.C. 297 4. Portions of the existing drainfield remaining in proper working condition may remain in service and have additional 298 drainfield added to it. 299 5. The resulting drainfield following the repair shall not be smaller than the existing drainfield prior to the repair. 300 2. Failed drain field:; :;hall at a minimum, meet the :;izing criteria specified below. 301 a. lfsufficient room i:; available, the existing drain field can be left in place and used a:; part of the system. A nev, 302 drainfield equal in size to, and :;eparate frmn, the eKding failed drainfield :;hall be added. 303 b. Sev .. age loading rates to trench or ab:.orption bed bottom areas shall be in accordance with the value:; in Table VIII 304 which are applicable to :;ubsurface and filled drainfield system:; if the existing drain field i:; replaced v,ith a new drain field. 305 f'.4ound trench :;)stems shall be :;ized 10 percent larger than the value:; below and;6() percent larger if absorption bed:; are 306 ittstalled in the mound:

TAHLE VIII Drainfield Sizing for COl11mercial Sy~;tel11s Installed

Prior to 199] in gallons. square fuot day

Slightly limited te)[ture:; i'vloderately limited te)[ture:;

Trenches +-000 ~

Ab:;orption Beds (h.W

~

307 (e) \1:here the cause of~;ystem failure it; determined to be from root clogging of the distribution bo)[ or drainfield line o+-a 308 :;ystel11, and '"here removal of the root mas~; and replacement of damaged drain field material v,'ill restore the :;):;[el11 to its 309 original design function, upon inspection and verification of the repair work by the health unit, permit satisfaction wi 11-00 310 00nsidered to be a0hieyed. 311 (t) A tank need not be replaced as part of the repair if the health unit determines the tank to be structurally sound, 312 constructed of approved materials, and if such tank has an effective capacity within two tank-sizes of the capacities required by 313 Table II. In addition, the tank shall be pumped and a solids deflection device shall be installed as a part of the outlet of the tank 314 if one is not currently in place. 315 (g) Repairs to a system shall not be located within 2 feet of a .;/eeved and scaled potable water line or 2 feet from non-316 potable water lines. 317 (h) If the total drainfield area exceeds 1000 square feet, or if the tank is too low to permit gravity flow into the drain field, 318 the drainfield shall be dosed. The requirements of subsections 64 E-6.0 14(3) and (4), F .A.C., shall be used for dosing 319 requirements. 320 (i) Setbacks from an existing system to a public well shall not be decreased from existing setbacks, but shall be increased 321 where practical to achieve the required setbacks as per paragraphs 64E-6.00S(l)(b) and (c), F.A.C. 322 (+Q) Ifa repair cannot be made utilizing the standards in subsection (e2,) above, all available area for drainfield repair shall 323 be assessed and the repair permit shall allow for the maximum size drainfield that can be accommodated in the available area 324 while allowing for the system to be installed meeting the required separation from the above the wettest season water table.

6

325 Obstructions and protected features placed in violation of original permit conditions shall be removed to provide space for 326 system repair. Total removal of the existing drainfield and replacement of the drainfield in its original location shall be 327 authorized if there is no additional area to enlarge the system. Setbacks to potable wells, and surface water bodies shall not be 328 less than the absolute minimum setbacks in subsection (5).,--ttHtl-B_ther per~inent matures ""hich arc Ie';:; [han the ~;e~back:;-ifl 329;un';ec~illn (0) above :;hall not be reduced nelll"" exi:,ting ~;etback:;. Nothing in [hi·; :;ection .,hall be con:;trued to allow a 330 drainfield from a !;y:;tem installed prior to 19&1 to remain v,'ithin 1:2 inche:; 0 f in the .,Yet sea~;on water table or to allow a 331 drainfield from a system installed after 19&2 to remain within 211 inche:; of the 'net :;eason water table. The appropriate 332 requirements for nottom of drain field ab:;orption surface to wet :;ea:;on ' • ..-ater table separation in Tanle V shall be adhered tu in 333 all repaiRr. Engineer-designed retention walls may be used to enclose a mound to maximixe the quantity of drainfield installed. 334 I f the resulting drainfield is less than 80 percent of the drain field required in paragraph (6), aerobic treatment units or 335 performance-based treatment systems and drip-emitter drain field systems shall be required to meet, as closely as possible, the 336 elevation, setback and sizing requirements of this section. 337 (&1) If soil replacement is to be performed on any repair, the requirements of Footnote 3., Table III, shall be adhered to. 338 (9) Sy:;tem repair:; :;hall be performed by pep;on:; whu are qualified·wdo so a:; set foFth in Part III ofthi:; ru-l0-0 339 ~cept w; pre~for in :;ub:;ection (7) above, the amount ofdFaHtfield in:;talled during the repair :;ha\.l-n~ss 340 than the amount tho ,;):;tem kd prior to the repair. 341 (II) Sunsection ME o.O()tI(7), F .. \.C, :;hall be ut,eli in conjunction with 'chi:; :;ectiun when permitting a repair in which the 342 property has been divided after the original permit ""Wi i:;:;ued. 343 (+2-1D For inspection purposes when a drainfield is repaired using a physical disruption method, such as air injection, the 344 contractor shall mark the location of each injection site in an easily identifiable manner. The county health department shall 345 inspect repairs to determine that the absorption surface of the repaired drainfield meets the separation requirements from ts-at 346 ~>HA1:7he:; above the wettest season high water table, to determine the repair process was completed according to the 347 information provided with the repair permit application and to determine the repair site is free of sanitary nuisance conditions. 348 (9) Any single drainfield trench or bed must consist entirely of the same drainfield product.

349 Rulemaking Authority 381.0065(3){a) FS Law Implemented 381.0065,386.041 FS History-New 3-17-92, Amended 1-3-95,2-350 13-97, Formerly IOD-6.057/, Amended 2-3-98,3-22-00,5-24-04,11-26-06, 6-25-09, 4-28-10~.

7

# 07-23 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 911312010 10'15:21 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Issue:

Subject: Performance-Based Systems-Standards

Rule Sections: 64E-6.025

Replaces current 7 -day and 30-day average discharge limits with a percent removal.

Issue Originated By: Eb Roeder, DOH

Justification: The proposed changes replace current 7 -day and 30-day average discharge limits with a percent removal., summarizes the performance requirements into a table format

Proposed Rule Change: 07 -23--64E-6.025-PBTS_revised_standards_er06_30_2010.doc

(See Attached)

Summary: Rewrites the definition and standards for Performance Based Treatment Systems

Possible Financial Impacts: should not be any for systems that meet the existing standards.

Date New: 8/3/2007 Initially Reviewed by Trap: 8/21/2007 Tabled by Trap: 8/27/2009 Trap Review Finished: 7/15/2010 Variance Committee Reviewed: 9/2/2010 Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 8/21/07 TRAP tabled for Damann Anderson's comments to be considered.

2/8/08 Eberhard discussed with Damann and made appropriate changes to definition 025(3). 2/3/09 Eberhard made several changes to the proposal, Gerald reviewed and did clean-up. 2/19/09 TRAP Tabled. Address grammar in (10) and make edits to table (differentiate between informational versus requirements in baseline standards and differentiate between bottom of the drainfield and soil versus treatment tank effluent readings.) 8/12/09 Eb made changes requested by TRAP 8/27/09 Tabled to reword Paragraph 3 and to meet with industry and look at research. 6/30/10 Eb revised for TRAP meeting. 7/15/10 TRAP passed to Variance Committee 9/2/10 Variance Comments: STI-This evens the playing field; HBI-ok; DEP­great; ENG-ok; CHD-ok; DEP-ok; REI-no comment; SHO-ok

1 Issue: Treatment Standard Definitions for Performance Based Treatment Systems. 2 3 • The proposal replaces treatment standards for 7-day and 30-day averages with a percent removal 4 performance standard. 7-day and 30-day averages are not meaningful in current practice. Percent 5 removal allows some consideration of variability in influent concentrations. 6 • The standards are reformatted in a table for ease of reading. 7 • Baseline standards are provided for all pollutants. Domestic sewage strength and septic tank effluent 8 standards are now consistent with 64E-6.002(15)(c) (domestic sewage strength). 9 • ATU standards are defined to clarify PBTS standards in locations where ATUs are required.

10 • Florida Keys standards are amended by grab sample and percent removal standards 11 • Advanced secondary treatment grab sample standards for nitrogen is loosened to make a distinction 12 from Florida Keys standard. 13 • Effluent is defined and treatment standards are adjusted for soil-based treatment. 14 • Disposal and treatment component are defined 15 16 17 64E-6.025 Definitions 18 Due to extensive revision, strike entire section and add the following: 19 20 Definitions in Chapter 64E-6, Parts I and II, are also applicable to Chapter 64E-6, Part IV. 21 (I) Bottom infiltrative surface - the vertical projection of the bottom surface of the drainfield that is no lower in 22 elevation than 30 inches below grade. 23 (2) Composite sample -a defined mixture of grab samples of wastewater or effluent taken in proportion to either 24 time or flow, to minimize the effect of the variability of the individual sample. 25 (3) Disposal component - arrangement of equipment and/or materials that distributes effluent within a 26 drainfield 27 (4) Effluent - treated sewage at the point of discharge to the drainfield or disposal system. Where the site 28 specific application proposes to use soil as component of the treatment system, effluent refers to the mixture of soil 29 water, effluent and shallow groundwater recovered from the monitoring points and treatment concentration 30 standards shall be decreased by 50% for cBOD5,TSS, TN, and TP, and by 90% for fecal coliform, and percent 31 removal standards of table IX shall be correspondingly adjusted. For systems designed to meet the standards of 32 64E-6.0 17(4), effluent refers to the recovered water product from a sampling point following the final design 33 treatment step. 34 (5) Failure - in addition to 64E-6.002(23), exceedance by an individual sample of the applicable performance 35 standards, unless the maintenance entity performs and documents maintenance, and a second individual sample is 36 taken within 30 days of the first individual sample and meets the applicable individual performance standard. 37 (6) Grab sample - a sample which is taken from wastewater or effluent over a period of time not to exceed 38 fifteen minutes. 39 (7) Effective drain field depth - the vertical distance from the bottom of the drainfield to the invel1 of the 40 distribution pipe. 41 (8) Innovative System - as defined by s. 381.0065(2)(g), F.S. 42 (9) Performance-based treatment system - a specialized onsite sewage treatment and disposal system designed 43 by a professional engineer with a background in wastewater engineering, licensed in the state of Florida, using 44 appropriate application of sound engineering principles to achieve specified levels ofCBODs (carbonaceous 45 biochemical oxygen demand), TSS (total suspended solids), TN (total nitrogen), TP (total phosphorus), and fecal 46 coliform found in domestic sewage waste, to a specific and measurable established performance standard. This term 47 also includes innovative systems. 48 (10) Performance-based treatment system maintenance entity - any person or business entity which has obtained 49 an annual written permit issued on form DH4013 from the DOH county health depal1ment in the county where the 50 maintenance entity is located and has been al:lthorized to perform maintenance by the design engineer or 51 manl:lfactmer of all treatment components I:Ised in the performance based treatment system and provides operation 52 and maintenance services associated with that performance based treatment system. 53 (11) Sidewall infiltrative surfaces - the horizontal projection of the drainfield measured from the invert of the 54 drainfield distribution pipe to the bottom infiltrative surface, or to 30 inches below finished grade, whichever is less. 55 (12) Total drainfield depth - the vertical distance from the bottom of the drainfield to the top of the drainfield.

56 (13) Treatment component - any arrangement of equipment and/or material that treats sewage in preparation for 57 further treatment and/or disposal. Treatment components may incorporate a disposal component. 58 (14) Treatment performance standards -59 (a) Performance standards for effluent from performance-based treatment systems consist of three criteria: 60 I. Annual average concentration is the arithmetic mean of the results of all effluent samples taken within the 61 previous 365 days, expressed as a concentration. 62 2. Individual sample - result of analysis of one effluent sample, whether grab sample or composite sample, 63 expressed as a concentration. 64 3. Percent removal- annual average removal ofa pollutant from the discharge of the treatment system 65 compared to the influent from the establishment. The influent stems from a septic tank or similar treatment 66 compartment; percent removal= (1- effluent concentration/influent concentration)* 100 67 (b) Treatment performance standards are established for five pollutants. 68 I. Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand after five days (CBODs), measured in mg oxygen per liter 69 2. Total suspended solids (TSS), measured in mg per liter 70 3. Total nitrogen (TN), the sum of nitrite, nitrate and total Kjeldahl nitrogen, measured in mg nitrogen per liter 71 4. Total phosphorus (TP), measured in mg phosphorus per liter 72 5. Fecal coliform, measured in colony forming units (cfu) or most probable number (MPN) per \00 mL 73 (c) Numerical values for several levels of common treatment performance standards for the five pollutants are 74 defined in Table IX. Compliance during monitoring shall consist of meeting at least one of the three criteria. To 75 achieve compliance the values determined from samples of the system shall be equal to or better than the treatment 76 standards listed. For concentrations, better means lower, for percent removal, better means higher. 77 (15) Wastewater strength - the sum of the CBODs and TSS concentrations. 78 79 PUT TABLE IX HERE 80 81 82 Rulemaking Authority 381.001 1(4), (13), 381.0065(3)(a), FS. Law Implemented 381.0065, 381.0067, 386.041, 83 FS. History-New 2-3-98, Amended 3-22-00, 06-18-03, 11-26-06, 84

85 TABLE IX 86 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 87

Domestic Baseline Baseline Aerobic Secondary Advanced Florida Keys Advanced Sewage Waste Septic Tank Treatment Treatment Unit Treatment Secondary Nutrient Wastewater

POLLUTANT Range Effluent Standard Effluent Effluent Treatment Reduction Treatment Effluent Standards 24" below bottom Standards Standards Effluent Effluent Standards

infiltrative surface Standards Standards CBODs -annual average 300 mg/L 150 mg/L 10 mg/l 20 mg/I 20 mg/l 10 mg/I 10 mg/I 5 mg/I -individual sample 500 mg/L 300 mg/L 20 mgl 60 mg/l 60 mg/l 30 mg/l 30 mg/ 10 mg/I -percent removal not applicable not applicable 95 90 90 95 95 97 TSS -annual average 200 mg/L 100 mg/L 30 mg/I 20 mg/I 20 mg/I 10 mg/I 10 mg/I 5 mg/I -individual sample 500 mg/L 200 mg/L 100 mg/ 60 mg/l 60 mg/l 30 mg/l 30 mg/l 10 mg/l -percent removal not applicable not applicable 85 90 90 95 95 97 TN -annual average 100 mg/L 100 mg/L 70 mg/L no requirement no requirement 20 mg/l 10 mg/l 3 mg/l -individual sample 150 mg/L 150 mg/L 100 mg/L 50 mg/l 40 mg/l 6 mg/l -percent removal not applicable not applicable 30 50 62 90 TP -annual average 18 mg/L 18 mg/L 12 mg/L no requirement no requirement 10 mg/I I mg/I I mg/I -individual sample 25 mg/L 25 mg/L 18 mg/L 20 mg/I 4 mg/l 2 mg/I -percent removal not applicable not applicable 30 25 50 90 Fecal coliform -annual average 2.0E+6 cful 2.0E+6 cful 20 cful no requirement 200 cful 200 cful no requirement I cful

100mi 100mi 100mi 100mi 100mi 100mi -individual sample 2.0E+7 cful 2.0E+7 cful 200 cful 800 cful 800 cful 25 cful

100 ml 100mi 100mi 100mi 100 ml 100mi -percent removal not applicable not applicable 99.999 99.99 99.99 99.9999

88 89 Footnote 1. Where chlorine is used for disinfection in a system designed to meet advanced wastewater treatment standard for fecal coliform the design shall 90 include provisions for rapid and uniform mixing; and the total chlorine residual of at least 1.0 mg!l shall be maintained at all times. The minimum acceptable 91 contact time shall be 15 minutes at the peak hourly flow. No individual sample shall exceed 5 mgiL TSS after the last treatment step before application of the

92 disinfectant. 93 Footnote 2. Where chlorine is used for disinfection in a system designed to meet either the secondary treatment standard or the advanced secondary treatment 94 standard for fecal coliform, the design shall include provisions for rapid and uniform mixing and a total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 mg!l shall be maintained 95 after at least 15 minutes contact time at the peak hourly flow. 96

97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

(I) AElvanceEl Secon ary rea m . n " EI T tent StanElarEls' A wastewater system with the following operational criteria:

(a) eBO~" anEl. TSS f h eBOD or TSS values for the effluent samples coliecteEl (,<,,,hether grab or I. The anthmette mean 0 t e" . EI h II t evceeEl 10 mgjj

. .. EI) EI . g an annual peno~ SHa· nOt " 0" •

composIte technIque IS useunn th . imum of four effluent samples, each 2. The arithmetie mean of the eB~D" or T~S v~lues :; a mm rate Elay Eluring a perioEl of90 consecutive coliecteEl (whether grab or composite technIque IS use on a sepa

Elays (qu~rterly~ shall not e*ceeEl 12.5 mg/I. "lues for a minimum offour effluent sample~, each 3. The anthmette mean of the eB~D" or T~S r~ EI) separate Elay of seven consecutive Elays shall coliecteEl (whether grab or composite technIque IS use on a

not e)weeEl 15 mg/I: . . f eBOD or TSS values in any effluent grab sample at any time 4. Ma*imum permissible concentrations 0 "

shall not e*ceeEl 20 mg/I.

~ arithmetic mean of the TN values for the effluent samples coliecteEl (whether grab or composite . " EI' al perioEl shall not e*ceeEl 20 mg/I.

technIque IS useEl)unng an annu. . f f r effluent samples, each coliecteEl (whether . h' fthe TN "alues for a mmlmum 0 tBU I ) 2. The ant mette mean 0 • EI 'EI' erioEl of90 consecutive Elays (quarter y grab or composite technique is useEl)on a separate a) urmg a p

shall not e)weeEl25 mg/I. . . f four effluent samples, each coliecteEl (whether 3. The arithmetic mean ~f th~ TN values for a mlnI;:'~; se"en consecutive Elays shall not e*ceeEl 30 mg,11. grab or composite technIque IS us eEl). on a sepa~~~el ). ~ ffluent grab sample at any time shall not 4. Ma*imum permissible concentrations ofT~\ ~a ues man} e e*ceeEl 40 mg/I.

~ arithmetic mean of the TP values for the effluent samples coliecteEl (whether grab or composite . . I' EI shall not e*ceeEl IQ mg/I.

technique is useEl) Elurmg an annua peno. ~ f th r effluent samples, each coliecteEl (whether . h' fthe TP "alues for a mmlmum 0 ou I )

2. The ant mette mean 0 ~ EI 'EI . a perioEl of90 consecutive Elays (quarter y grab or composite technique is useEl)on a separate a) unng

shall not e*ceeEl 12.5 mg/I. . . f fo r effluent samples, each coliecteEl (','ihether 3. The arithmetic mean ~f th~ TP values for a mml~:~: se":n consecutive Elays shall not e*ceeEl 15 mg/I. grab or composite technIque IS us eEl). on a separ~t~ ). " ffluent grab sample at any time shall not 4. Ma)cimum permissible concentrations ofTP ra ues man) e

e*ceeEl 20 mg,11. . . t ore than 200 fecal coliform colonies per IQO ml (EI) fecal coliform system ope~atlO.n sha~ :s~~S::~:ti~n the Elesign shall induEle provisions for rapiEl anEl of effluent sample. Where chlon?e IS u~: lor f \ ItO 5 'mg,1j shall be maintaineEl after at least 15 uniform mi*ing ~nEl a total chlonne r~s,1 flu~" 0

T ~ EI:::rmine compliance of a system, the following minutes contact time at the peak hour} 0". 0 I' bl

. (. 'th r Mf or MPN methoEls) are app tea e. EI operational critenausmg el e,., I' II t EI Eluring the annual perioEl shall not e*cee I. The arithmetic mean ofthe fecal coliform co OnIes co ec e

200 per \QO ml of effluent. ... m number of IQ samples of effluent, each 2. The meElian value of the fec~1 colifor~ :o;;~e:a~: ~m::~~)~) shall not e)weeEl200 per IQO ml of coliecteEl on a separate Elay Elunng a peno 0

~ore than 10% of the samples coliecteEl Eluring the perioEl ono consecutive Elays shall e*ceeEl 400

fecal coliform colonies per IQO ml of sample. I"thrm colonies per IQO ml of sample. 4. Anyone sample shall HOt e*ceeEl 8~O fu:aIElc~ ~ ~"astewater system 't'"ith the following operational (2) AElvanceEl Wastewater Treatment tan ar s. n vr Ii

criteria:

(a) eBO~" anEl.TSS f h eBOD or TSS "alues for the effluent samples coliecteEl (whether grab or I The anthmette mean 0 t e ". EI 5 II . .. EI) EI ring an annual perioEl shall not e)wee mgr .

composite technIque IS useu th. imum of four effluent samples, each . l.' fthe eBOD or TSS values or a mm .

2. The antHmette mean o~" . '. EI) eparate Elay Eluring a perioEl of 90 consecutive coliecteEl (v"hether grab or composite technIque IS use on as Elays (quarterly) shall not e)weeEl 6.25 mg/I.

153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

3. The arithmetic mean of the CBOD~ or T88 values for a minimum of four ef~~ent sample~:,each, shall collected (whether grab or composite technique is used) on a separate day of seven consecutive day s

not exceed 7.5 mgll. . ffI b Ie at any time 4. Ma)cimum permissible concentrations of CBOD~ or T88 values many e uent gra samp shall not exceed 10 mg/I.

~ arithmetic mean of the TN value.s for the effluent samples/collected (whether grab or composite techni ue is used) during an annual peflod shall not exceed 3 m~1. 2 The~rithmetic mean of the TN values for a minimum offour effluent samples, eac~ collected ('v\'het~er g~ab or composite technique is used)on a separate day during a period of90 consecutive days (quarterly)

shall not exceed 3.75 mg/I. I hilt d (whether 3 The arithmetic mean of the TN values for a minimum offour effluent ~amp es, eac co ec e d~ 5 /1 ~ab or com osite technique is used) on a separate day of seven consecutive days shall not. excee . mgT.

~. Maximur! permissible concentrations of TN values in any effluent grab sample at any time shall not e)cceed 6 mg/I.

~ arithmetic mean of the TP value~ for the effluent samples ~ollected (whether grab or composite techni ue is used) during an annual peflod shall not exceed I mgA. ll,

2 The~rithmetic mean of the TP values for a minimum of four effluent samples, eac~ collected (Yfheth~r g~ab or composite technique is used)on a separate day during a period of 90 consecutive days (quarterl))

shall not exceed 1.25 mg/I. I hilt d (whether 3 The arithmetic mean of the TP values for a minimum of four effluent s~mp es, eac co ec e?Y / g;'ab or composite technique is used) on a separate day of seven consecutive days shall no~ e)(c~e~II.5 tm~1. 4. Ma)(imum permissible concentrations of TP values in any effluent grab sample at any time s a no

exceed 2.0 mgll. . h' h t< I i't< colonies (per 100 (d) Fecal coliform system operation shall result in an effluent m w IC~ :eca ~o H)rm: . m~ of sample) are below detectable limits. \Vhere chlorine is used for dlsmfectlOn, the de~lgn shall mcIude

provisions for rapid and uniform mixing; and the total chlorine residual of at. least 1.0 :gA s~a!1 bel' fl ll'

maintained at all times. The minimum acceptable contact time shall b~ 15 n:'mut~s at t e pea ( ~~r) 0>7.

To determine compliance of a system, the following operational critena (usmg either MF or equi. alent

MPN methods) shall be applicable 30 d' . d ;. Fecal coliform shall be below the detection limits for 75~~ of the samples collected over aa) peno . 2 An' one sam Ie shall not exceed 25 fecal coliform coloRies per 100 ml .of s.ample. .. 3' ~n;' one sam:le shall not e)cceed 5.0 mgll ofT88 at a point befor~ applICatI~n ofth~ dI.sI~fectant. (.3) Baseline system standards A wastewater system with the followmg operatIOnal cntena. (a) Effluent concentrations from the treatment tank: I. CBOD~ <240 mg/I 2. T88 <176 mgll 3. TN < 45 mg/I

4. TP < 10 mg/I .. dw

t . (b) Percolate concentrations from the baseline system pflor to discharge to groun 1'Ya er. I. CBOD~ <5 mg/I 2. T88 <5 mg/I 3. TN < 25 mg/I

4 TP <5 mg/I . . (4) Bottom infiltrative surface the vertical projection of the bottom surface of the dramfield that IS no

lower in elevation than 30 inches belo','l grade. ffl ttl t (5) Composite sample means a combination of individual sampl.es of wa~t~w~ter or e uen a (en a selected intervals, generally hourly or less for some specified penod, to mmimize the effect of the "ariability of the individual sample. . h (6) Grab sample a sample ','lhich is taken from a wastestrea~ without regard to the flow m t e '''astestream and over a period of time not to e)cceed fifteen mmutes. . . " (;) Effective drainfield depth the vertical distance from the bottom of the dramfield to the m~ ert of the

distribution pipe. h' h '11 'd o"ered p'ater product (8) Florida Keys nutrient reduction treatment a treatment w IC WI prO'. I~e a rec y • n n that contains not more, on a permitted annual average basis, than the followmg concentratIOns rom a

209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255

sampling point located follO',ving the final design treatment step of the onsite se','iage treatment and disposal systeIw. I. Biochemical Oxygen Demand ECBOD~) 10 mg/I

2. Suspended Solids 10 mg/I 3. Total Nitrogen, expressed as N 10 m§iJ 4. Total Phosphorus, e)(pressed as P I mg/I E9j Innovative System as defined by s. 38 1.0065E2jEg), F.S. . , E I 0) Performance based treatment system a specialized onsite se',vage tn:atm~nt an.d dlspo~al sJ stem f designed by a professional engineer with a backgro~nd i~ was~ev~ater engme.e~l,ng, lic~ns:dll~ treOs:~~~D Florida, using appropriate application of sound engmeenng pnnClples ~o achle~ e spet~e e~; ~P El t I ~ Ecarbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand), TSS Elotal suspended solIds),. TN Etota nItrog:~, t bl~ : d phosphorus), and fecal coliform found in dome.stic sev~age waste, to a specific and measura e es a s e

erformance standard. This term also ineludes mnovatlve systems: .. . rll) Performance System Maintenance Entity any person or bUSIn~sS entity WhIC~ has b~en Issued a '.witten permit by the county health depaliment and has been authonzed by the deSign, engmee~ or ,,'d manufacturer of all treatment components used in the performance based treatment S) stem an proyl es o eration and maintenance services associated with performance based tre~tment sys~em. . '. E f2) Secondary Treatment Standards: l\ 'llaste'",'ater system ','/ith the follOWIng operatIOnal cntena.

Eaj CBOD~ and TSS I II t d ("'hether grab or 1 The arithmetic mean of the CBOD~ or TSS values for the effluent samp es co ec e \" c~m osite technique is used) during an annual period SHall not exceed 20 mg/1. 2 T:e aritHmetic mean of the CBOD,-or TSS values for a minimum of four e~fluent sa~ples, eacH '"

. . .. d\ te da'-' durmg a peflod of 30 consecuth e collected Ewhether grab or composite technIque IS use ) on a separa J

days Emonthlyj shall not e)(Ceed 30 mg/1. h 3 The arithmetic mean of the CBOD~ or TSS values for a minimum of four effluent sample~, eac , c~lIected Ewhether grab or composite technique is usedj on a separate day of seven consecutive daJ s shall

not exceed 45

mg/1. . f~ b Ie at any time 4. Maximum permissible concentrations of CBOD~ or TSS values many e Huent gra samp

shall not exceed 60 mg/1. I' B I' 100 ml b Fecal coliform s 'stem operation shall result in not more than 200 fecal co Hlrm co .0~les per~ ~/effluent sample. \)here chlorine is used for disinfection, the design shall .inel.ude provIsions for rapid and

uniform milling and a total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 m§1! sh~ll be maIntamed a:er:~/~~,~t 15 minutes contact time at tHe peak hourly flow. To determine compliance of~ system, teo 0 dmg operational criteria Eusing either MF or equivalent MPN methods) ~re applicable. . d hilt d I. The arithmetic mean of the fecal coliform colonies collected dunng the annual peno s a no e)(Cee

200 per 100 ml of effluent. f ffl h 2 The geometric mean of the fecal coliform colonies for a minimum of 10 samples 0 e uent, eac c~lIected on a separate day, shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml of sample. . 3. No more than 10% of the samples collected during a period of30 consecutive days shall e)(Ceed 400 fecal coliform colonies per 100 ml of sample. 4 An' one sample shall not exceed 800 fecal coliform values per 100 ?"l of sample. '" f Ei3) ~idewall infiltrative surfaces the horizontal projection of the dram~eld measu~~,d fr?~ t;e In~ert 0

the drainfield distribution pipe to the bottom infiltrative surface, or to 30 mches belo d finIS e gra e,

whichever is less. f h d . fi Id t th t P of the 04) Total drainfield depth the vertical distance from the bottom 0 t eraIn eoeo

drainfield. . . th ffl t o 5j Wastewater strength the sum of the CBOD~ and TSS concentratIOns me e uen.

# 08-15 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10:1530 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Bedroom Definition

Rule Sections: 64E-6.002

Develop a bedroom definition that is more consistent with the Building Commission Bedroom Definition Workgroup's preferred option.

Issue Originated By: Florida Building Code Commission

Justification: The proposed changes redefines 'bedroom' to be more easily and consistently interpreted and applied.

Proposed Rule Change: 08-15_64E-6.002_Bedroom_Definition-8-25-10.doc (See Attached)

Summary: Redefine BEDROOM to be more easily and consistently interpreted and applied.

Possible Financial Impacts: unknown until a specific proposal is selected and refined 6/2/2008 Date New:

Initially Reviewed by Trap: 6/5/2008 Tabled by Trap: 1/28/2010 Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments:

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

6/5/08 TRAP TABLED awaiting a report back from the CHD. 8/8/08 Gerald removed from agenda, no new info available for discussion. 8/13/09 Latest proposal (room counting) added to TRAP agenda 8/27/09 TRAP Tabled. Chairman Harper will write letter to Building Commission re: "we are keeping same situation with bedrooms and will send large homes to the variance committee" 1-13-10 Incorporated building commission's preferred option and incorporated Christensen findings. 1-28-10 TRAP tabled bedroom definition for more consideration and approved large house flow modification to go to TRAP as issue 10-01. 7/1/10 Nothing new, just sample definitions from around the country to discuss. Gerald says take off 7/15/10 agenda. 8/25/10 Added to TRAP agenda with new definition proposal.

CJ CJ

1 64E-6.002 Definitions. 2 For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings indicated: 3 (I) through (10) No change 4 5 (II) Bedroom - [CURRENT RULE]- a room designed primarily for sleeping or a room which is expected to 6 routinely provide sleeping accommodations for occupants. 7 8 (11) Bedroom - [8/25/10 PROPOSAl] A room that is listed as descriptive of the residence if the residence was 9 on the market for sale or rent and that can be used for sleeping, which is located along an exterior wall, has an

10 emergency escape and rescue opening and a door or an entrance where a door could be reasonably installed. A 11 room cannot be considered a bedroom if it is used to access another room, unless the room that is accessed, is a 12 bathroom. Occupancy is calculated as 2 persons per bedroom. 13 14 (12) to (59) No change

15 Rulemaking Authority 381.0011 (4), (13), 381. 0065 (3)(a) FS. Law Implemented 381.0065, 381.00655 FS. History-16 New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 10D-6.42, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly JOD-6.042, Amended 17 11-19-97,3-22-00, 11-26-06'-------.

18

# 09-01 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10:15:42 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Non-Transient Recreational Vehicle Space Flow

Rule Sections: 64E-6.008 Table I

The current rule makes no distinction between spaces used for transient recreational vehicles and non-transient recreational vehicles.

Issue Originated By: David Wolfe, DOH

Justification: The proposed changes provide an estimated daily sewage flow for non-transient recreational vehicle spaces that is the same as the flow for mobile home spaces.

Proposed Rule Change: 09-01--64E-6.00B_Non- (See Attached) transient_recreational_ vehicle_ space_sizing. doc

Summary: Provides an estimated daily sewage flow for non-transient recreational vehicle spaces that is the same as the flow for mobile home spaces.

Possible Financial Impacts: Would result in increased flow calculation for those recreational vehicle parks that have allowed permanent recreational vehicle occupancy of transient recreational vehicle spaces. This would require system upgrades to accommodate the increased flow.

Date New: 1/16/2009 Initially Reviewed by Trap: 8/27/2009 Tabled by Trap: 8/27/2009 Trap Review Finished: 1/28/2010 Variance Committee Reviewed: 9/212010 Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 2/19/09 TRAP did not consider due to time constraints. Put on next TRAP

agenda. 8/27/09 TRAP Tabled to incorporate Park Models into language. 1/6110 Incorporated park model language. 1/28/10 TRAP approved to go to Variance committee. 3/4110 Variance committee requested additional information from David Wolfe. 9/2/10 Variance comments: REI-don't like; STI-ok; HBI-iffy; DEP-good; ENG­Do not like, do not understand the need, how do you determine?; CHD-makes sense, good change; SHO-ok;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

64E-6.008 System Size Determinations (1) Minimum design flows for systems serving any structure, building or group of buildings shall be based on

the estimated daily sewage flow as determined from Table I or the following: (a) through (b) No change

TABLE I For System Design

ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT

COMMERCIAL: Mobile Home Park or Recreational Vehicle Park

(a) per single-wide mobile home space or non-transient recreational vehicle space or park model space, less than 4 single-wide

GALLONS PER OA Y

spaces connected to a shared onsite system ............................................................................................. 250 (b) per single-wide mobile home space or

non-transient recreational vehicle space or park model space, 4 or more single-wide spaces connected to a shared onsite system ............................................................................................. 225

(c) per double-wide mobile home space or, non-transient recreational vehicle space

____ less than 4 double-wide mobile home spaces connected to a shared onsite system ........................................................................................................ 300

(d) per double-wide mobile home space or, non-transient recreational vehicle space,

____ 4 or more double-wide mobile home spaces connected to a shared onsite system ........................................................................................................ 275

(e) per transient recreational vehicle space for overnight stay, without water and sewer hookup per vehicle space ......................................................................................................... 50

CD per transient recreational vehicle space for overnight stay, with water and sewer hookup per vehicle space .......................................................................................................................... 75

Office building per employee per 8 hour shift or ..................................................................................................................... 15 per 100 square feet of floor space, whichever is greater ................................................................................. 15

Transient Recreational Vehicle Park (a) Recreational vehicle space for

overnight stay, v.ithout ',>,ater and [;e'ker hookup per vehicle space ........................................................................................................ 50

(b) Recreational "ehicle space for o"ernight !,tay, with water and sewer hookup per vehicle space ........................................................................................................................ 75

(2) through (6) No change Specific Authority ;.&+,.001 1 (tl ),( 13), 381.0065(3)(a), FS. Law Implemented 381.0065, FS. History-New 12-

22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 100-6.48, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly 100-6.048, Amended 11-19-97, Amended 3-22-00, 9-5-00, 11-26-06,---.

# 09-02 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 911312010 10:15:51 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Metered Water Use Records

Rule Sections: S4E-S.015(S)(d)

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

The rule requires metered water flow records to be used in sizing repairs. This does not take into account the factors that may cause water flow records to be higher than actual flow into the system.

David Scharr, P.E.

The proposed changes allow the two months of outlying flow data to be discarded when flows are calculated. Trying various approaches working with multiple data sets and various statistical approaches, just tossing three months of data got us to the same point.

09-02--64E-6.015_Metered_Water_Use_Records.doc (See Attached)

bases commercial repair flows on table I or the highest monthly flow from the last 18 months or the fourth-highest flow from the last 24 months.

could eliminate some systems that are over-sized. 2/10/2009 2/19/2009 8/27/2009

Comments: 2/19/09 TRAP Tabled until next meeting. 8/27/09 TRAP Tabled for DOH to develop language eliminating requirement to use metered water flow for repairs and to include language having metered water flows considered but not the required determiner. 8/31/2010 Returned to TRAP agenda. Allow excluding highest three months. If the last month is to be excluded, correction documentation is required.

Ready for Rule D In Rule D Rule Date:

1 64E-6.01S Permitting and Construction of Repairs 2 All repairs made to a failing onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be made only with prior knowledge and 3 written approval from the DOH county health department having jurisdiction over the system. Approval shall be granted only if 4 all of the following conditions are met: 5 (1) through (5) No change 6 (6) Construction materials used in system repairs shall be of the same quality as those required for new system 7 construction. Aggregate and soil in spoil material from drainfield repairs shall not be used in system repair in any manner. 8 Undamaged infiltration units, pipes and mechanical components may be reused on the original site. Any spoil material taken off 9 site shall be disposed of in a permitted landfill or shall be limed and stockpiled for at least 30 days to prevent a sanitary

10 nuisance. Offsite spoil material stockpile areas shall meet the prohibition requirements of Rule 62-701.300(2), F AC. The 11 resulting lime-treated material shall not be used for drainfield repair, or construction of any onsite sewage treatment and 12 disposal system. Any use of the lime treated material shall not cause a violation of Chapter 386 F.S., and shall not impair 13 groundwater or surface water. Mineral aggregate and soil in spoil material may, at the option of the septic tank contractor and 14 the property owner, be buried on site if limed before burial. Lime amount must be sufficient to preclude a sanitary nuisance. 15 Depth of seasonal high water table to the spoil material must be at least six inches. Setbacks for buried spoil material shall be 16 the same as for onsite sewage treatment and disposal system drainfields. A minimum of six inches of slightly or moderately 17 limited soil shall cover the spoil material and shall extend to at least five feet around the perimeter of the burial site. Any failing 18 system shall, at a minimum, be repaired in accordance with the following criteria: 19 (a) through (c) No change 20 (d) Repairs of commercial systems installed prior to 1983 shall be based on the following criteria: 21 I. Sewage flows shall be determined from values found in Table I of 64E-6.008 or from documented water-use records, 22 whichever is higher. In determining the sewage flow from documented water use records, the applicant shall choose one of the 23 following: 24 a. The en-tfle highest monthly flow for the previous 18:-month period from documented water use records, whichever is 25 hlgflef. 26 b. The fOUlih-highest monthly flow for the previous 24-month period. In order to discard the most recent month of water-27 use data, the applicant shall provide documentation of the reason that the month was unusually high and that the excessive water 28 use has been corrected. 29 2. No change 30 (e) through (i) No change 31 (7) through (12) No change 32 Specific Authority 381.0011(4), (13), 381.0065(3)(a), FS. Law Implemented 381.0012, 381.0025, 381.0061, 381.0065, 33 381.0067,386.041, FS. History-New 3-17-92, Amended 1-3-95,2-13-97, Formerly 100-6.0571, Amended 2-3-98,3-22-00, 34 05-24-04 11-26-06-,--.

Index - May 24, 2004 1

# 10-02 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10: 16:00 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Soil Replacement for Drip Systems

Rule Sections: 64E-6.009

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

The rule requires 42 inches of suitable soil below the bottom of the drainfield. Drip irrigation systems do not require spodic horizons to be removed when they are more than 24 inches below the bottom of the drainfield.

Scott Franz, Soil Scientist

The proposed changes allow spodic horizons to remain in place provided they are more than 24 inches below the drip emitter drainfield.

10-02--64E-6.009_Effective_soil_depth_for_drip_systems.doc

(See Attached)

Eliminates requirement for replacement of spodic horizons between 24 and 42 inches below a drip emitter drainfield.

Should reduce costs by eliminating soil replacements between 24 and 42 inches of the bottom of the drip emitter bed. 2/26/2010 7/15/2010

7/15/2010 9/2/2010

Comments: 7/15/10 TRAP passed to Variance Committee

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

9/2/10 Variance Comments: STI-I agree completely; HBI-ok; DEP-ok; ENG­good; CHD-no comment; SHO-require the design engineer to state whether to digout or let spodic stay.

D D

1 64E-6.009 Alternative Systems. 2 Un-numbered introductory paragraph - No change 3 (I) through (4) No change 4 (5) Drip irrigation systems - Drip irrigation systems may, at the option of the applicant, be used in lieu of a mineral 5 aggregate drainfield. Drip irrigation systems shall meet all requirements of this chapter except as noted below. 6 (a) Drip irrigation systems shall receive effluent from an approved aerobic treatment unit or a performance based treatment 7 system designed to meet at least secondary treatment standards for CBODs and TSS, and shall meet the following 8 requirements: 9 I. through 26. No change

10 27. The minimum effective soil depth below drip emitter lines shall be 42 inches; however, spodic layers greater than 24 11 inches below the drip emitter lines may remain in place at the discretion of the design engineer. 12 (b) Drip irrigation systems shall be monitored during required maintenance visits by visual inspection of the ground 13 surface above the emitter lines for evidence of soil saturation at the ground surface. 14 (6) through (10) No change

15 Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065 (3)(a) FS. Law Implemented 381.0065 FS. History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 16 IOD-6.49, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.049, Amended ll-19-97, 2-3-98, 3-22-00, 4-21-02, 6-18-03, 11-26-06, 17 6-25-09.

# 10-04 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: Sand lined trenches

Rule Sections: 64E-6.008

Printed 9/13/2010 10:16:12 AM

Allow placing a sand liner 24 inches deep beneath the drainfield trench to allow the water in the drainfield trench to more rapidly percolate.

Mike Sundin, Apalachee Backhoe

The proposed changes allow the installation of a sand liner beneath the drainfield trench in non-karst settings to allow effluent to percolate rapidly from the trench into the sand liner down to the seasonal high water table.

09-04--64E-6.00B_Sand_liner_under_drainfields.doc (See Attached)

Allows a sand liner beneath drainfield trenches down to the seasonal high water table.

cost of liner sand and installation, may prolong system life 5/15/2010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

64E-6.008 System Size Determinations. (I) to (4) No change (5) The minimum absorption area for standard subsurface drainfield systems, graywater drainfield systems, and

filled systems shall be based on estimated sewage flows and Table III so long as estimated sewage flows are 200 gallons per day or higher. When estimated sewage flows are less than 200 gallons per day, system size shall be based on a minimum of200 gallons per day.

TABLE III No change

Footnotes to Table III: I. through 5. No change 6. In non-karst areas where moderately limited soil underlies the drain field, the moderately limited soil may be

removed beneath the entire drainfield to a depth of 24 inches below the bottom of the drainfield. The removed soil shall be replaced with slightly limited soil material. The loading rate for drainfields installed over such a soil replacement shall not be increased to be greater than the loading rate for the native soil.

(6) No change

Ru/emaking Authority 38J.0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381.0065 FS History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 10D-6.48, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly 10D-6.048, Amended 11-19-97,3-22-00,9-5-00, 11-26-06, 6-25-09'-------.

64E-6.009 Alternative Systems. When approved by the DOH county health department, alternative systems may, at the discretion of the applicant, be utilized in circumstances where standard subsurface systems are not suitable or where alternative systems are more feasible. Unless otherwise noted, all rules pertaining to siting, construction, and maintenance of standard subsurface systems shall apply to alternative systems. In addition, the DOH county health department may, using the criteria in subsection 64E-6.004(4), F.A.C., require the submission of plans prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Florida, prior to considering the use of any alternative system.

(I) through (2) No change (3) Mound systems - are used to overcome cel1ain limiting site conditions such as an elevated seasonal high

water table, shallow permeable soil overlying slowly permeable soil and shallow permeable soil located over creviced or porous bedrock. Special installation instructions or design techniques to suit a particular site shall, using the criteria in subsection 64E-6.004(4), F.A.C., be specified on the construction permit in addition to the following general requirements.

(a) through U) No change (k) In non-karst areas where moderately limited soil underlies the drain field, the moderately limited soil may be

removed beneath the entire drainfield to a depth of24 inches below the bottom of the drainfield. The removed soil shall be replaced with slightly limited soil material. The loading rate for drainfields installed over such a soil replacement shall not be increased to be greater than the loading rate for the native soil

(4) through (10) No change

Ru/emaking Authority 381.0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381.0065 FS History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 10D-6.49, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly 10D-6.049, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98, 3-22-00, 4-21-02, 6-18-03, 11-26-06,6-25-09'-------.

Index - June 25,2009 1

# 10-05 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10: 16:24 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Part II (Florida Keys) S8 550, Update standards

Rule Sections: 64E-6.017, 018, 0181, 0182

SB 550 (Ch. 2010-205, Laws of Florida) amended repair standards for the Florida Keys. Many provisions are being relocated within the rules to eliminate duplication. Additionally, several provisions of Part II need updating to address evolving technology.

Issue Originated By: Dale Holcomb, DOH

Justification: The proposed changes incorporate repair standards for systems in areas where sewer will be available by the end of 2015 and clarify options for onsite systems in the Florida Keys.

Proposed Rule Change: 1 0-05--64E-6.017 -ParUI_changes_for_S8550.doc (See Attached)

Summary: The changes clarify standards for performance-based systems in the Florida Keys and provide repair standards in areas to be served by sewer by 2015.

Possible Financial Impacts: Savings include septic tanks in areas where aerobic treatment would have been required in prior rule. New costs include annual screening (field test kit) samples to verify nutrient reduction.

Date New: 6/22/2010 Initially Reviewed by Trap: 7/15/2010 Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: 7/15/2010

9/212010 Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 7/2/10 Language was noticed in FAW to provide standards for repairs

required by 2010-205 LOF effective 7-1-10. 7/15/10 Passed to Variance committee with minor changes. 7/20/10 Made TRAP changes. 8/26/10 Made changes based on conversation with Bobbie and Bill re phosphorous media and bed liners and collars. 9/2/10 Variance comments: SHO-AII system repairs now depend on MHWL -so everything needs an elevation.; CHD-Should eliminate the need for some regularly approved variances.; STI-no problem; HBI-Needed; DEP-ok; REI-no comment; ENG-ok;

1 PART II

2

3 64E-6.017 Definitions.

4 Definitions in Chapter 64E-6, Parts I and III, F.A.C., are also applicable to Chapter 64E-6, Part II, F.A.C.

5 (I) Basic disinfection - treatment process designed to meet secondary treatment standards for fecal coliform providing an

6 arithmetic annual mean not to exceed 200 fecal coliform colonies per 100 ml sample.

7 (I) through (3) renumber as (2) through (4) No change

8 ill fLY Minimum level of waste treatment - a treatment which will provide a recovered water product that contains not

9 more, on a permitted annual average basis, than the following concentrations from a sampling point located following the final

10 design treatment step of the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system:

11

(a) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBODs)

(b) Suspended Solids

(c) Total Nitrogen, expressed as N

(d) Total Phosphorus, expressed as P

10 mg/1J

10 mg/V

10 mg/1+

I mg/1+

12 (5) through (7) renumbered as (6) through (8) No change

13 Rulemaking Authority 381. 0011 (4), (13), J~381. 0065(3)(a), (4)(JJJkf FS., Ch. 99-395, LOF. Law Implemented -H+.J}-I-;

14 38!.OO!(2-r,38J.OOllH-j, J81006(7), 381.0061, 381.0065,~00655, 38604-l- FS., Ch. 99-395, LOF. History-New 7-15-86,

15 Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.062, Amended 3-3-98,3-22-00'-----.

16 64E-6.018 System Location, Design and Maintenance Criteria.

17 illTable III of Chapter 64E-6, Part I, F.A.C., and other subsections of Part I pertaining to soil texture, soil depth, and

18 maximum sewage loading rates for specific soils shall not apply to areas subject to the provisions of this Part except for Table

19 III, Footnote 2., as it relates to the falling head percolation test procedure. However, approved system design criteria, system

20 location, operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements of this section subseotion~; 6'1 E 6.0 I lie I). (2), (3), and (4),

21 ¥-:-~shall apply. A minimum of one soil profile and one percolation test per application shall be required for site evaluations

22 performed in the Florida Keys. However, a soil profile and percolation test is not required when the :;y:;tem design enginoer

23 ohoo:;o:; the W;C 0 r an injection well is used for effluent disposal.

24 (2) Effluent loading rates for various onsite sewage treatment and disposal system components installed under this part

25 shall not exceed the following:

(a) Nutrient-reducing material-lined drainfield receiving effluent from a performance-based 1.7 gallons per day

treatment system. per sguare foot

(b) Sand-lined drainfield receiving effluent from a performance-based treatment system 1.3 gallons per day

per sguare foot

(c) Sand-lined drainfield receiving effluent from an aerobic treatment unit 1. 1 gallons per day

per sguare foot

(d) Sand-lined drain field receiving effluent from a seQtic tank 0.9 gallons per day

per sguare foot

(e) Mineral aggregate filter receiving effluent from an aerobic treatment unit or performance 5.5 gallons per day

based treatment system I per sguare foot

26 illAll new, modified and repaired onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems shall be performance-based treatment

27 systems designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Florida, permitted in ac,cordance with Part IV of this chapter and shall

28 meet the minimum level of waste treatment as defined in sectionRttle 64E-6.017, F.A.C. All receptacles subject to a positive

29 buoyancy exposure shall be anchored or otherwise weighted to prevent flotation during flooding periods. The engineer's design

30 shall evaluate the receptacles :;hall he evaluated for buoyancy while in their normal operating condition.

31 (:!)fB An onsite sewage treatment and disposal system which meets the location, construction, maintenance and

32 operational requirements of this section flamgmflh:; e#T-&.~~) or (h), F.AC., shall be approved, provided that if an

33 aerobic treatment unit is a component of the system design, the certification, construction, operational and maintenance

34 requirements of Rule 64E-6.0 12, F.A.C., shall also be met; however, the design engineer may specify an aerobic treatment unit

35 with a minimum treatment capacity equal to the estimated sewage flow in Table I in lieu ofusing the values in Table IV when

36 the aerobic treatment unit is part of a performance-based treatment system ..

37 (a) When final effluent disposal is into a nutrient reducing material-lined drainfield system, the following general

38 requirements shall apply:

39 h-+ftB.CHunty heal~h deflartment ';hall require the int;taller of a nutrient reducing material lined drainfield sy:;tem to pr~

40 ~l-ttBft-from the in3taller's nutrient reducing material supfllier that the material sUflplied for such tYfle of installations

41 meet:; the requirements of this :;ub:;eGtiun.

42 1. A minimum 12 inch thiCk layer of nutrient-reducing material shall be placed beneath the bottom ofthe drainfield

43 adsomtion surface and a minimum 12 inch wide and minimum 24 inch thick layer of the nutrient-reducing material shall be

44 placed contiguous to the drainfield sidewall adsorption surfaces in order to ensure that all effluent leaving the drainfield must

45 pass through at least 12 inches of nutrient-reducing material before reaching the surrounding natural limestone rock.

46 2. If the nutrient-reducing material is more coarse than the quartz sand required in subparagraph 64E-6.018(4)(b)1.. the

47 nutrient reducing material shall overlie a 12 inch thick layer of quartz sand meeting the particle size requirements for sand

48 liners in subparagraph 64E-6.018(4)(b)1.

49 ~2-,-No part of the system shall be within 25 feet of the boundaries of surface water bodies or salt marsh and Buttonwood

50 Association habitat areas where the dominant vegetation species are those typical of salt marsh communities.

51 1...J. The bottom ofthe drainfield shall be at least 24 inches above mean high water. The bottom surface of the nutrient

52 reducing material layer shall be at least 12 inches above mean high water. The bottom surface of the sand layer. if required.

53 shall be at or above the elevation of mean high water.

54 2---4:--Appropriate shallow root vegetative cover shall be established over drainfield systems to maximize the beneficial

55 effects of evapotranspiration.

56 S. Nutrient reducing material ha:; a finite life sflan. ['he nutrient reducing material :;hall he replaced as necessary to eF\-Stlf€

57 th-at the system continue!; to meet the minimum level of ',mste treatment.

58 6. Even effluent distribution over the nutrient reducing material layer shall be assured by utilizing low-pressure dosing, or

59 drip irrigation.

60 7. If drip emitter lines are used. the nutrient-reducing material shall extend at least 12 inches horizontally from the drip

61 emitter lines.

62 (b) When final disposal is into a sand-lined drain field, the following general requirements apply:

63 I. For a sand-lined drainfield, a minimum 12 inch thick layer of quartz sand shall be placed beneath the bottom of the

64 drainfield adsorption surface and a minimum 12 inch wide and minimum 24 inch thick layer of quartz sand shall be placed

65 contiguous to the drainfield sidewall adsorption surfaces in order to provide an additional level of effluent treatment prior to

2

66 effluent passing into the surrounding natural limestone rock. Sand material shall have either an effective grain size in the range

67 of 0.25 millimeter to 1.00 millimeter and shall have a uniformity coefficient of less than 3.5, or the material shall be of such

68 size whereby at least 90 percent of the sand particles pass a U.S. Standard Number 18 sieve and less than 10 percent pass a

69 number 60 sieve. These materials are in the USDA soil texture classes known as medium sand and coarse sand. The county

70 health department shall require the installer of a sand-lined drainfield system to provide certification from the installer's sand

71 supplier that the sand supplied for such type of installation meets the requirements of this subsection.

72 2. No part of the system shall be within 25 feet of the mean high water line of tidally influenced surface water bodies or

73 within 25 feet of the mean annual flood line of permanent nontidal surface water bodies or salt marsh and Buttonwood

74 Association habitat areas where the dominant vegetation species are those typical of salt marsh communities.

75 3. The bottom of the drainfield shall be at least 24 inches above mean high water. At least 12 inches of the sand layer shall

76 be at least 12 inches above mean high water.

77 4. Appropriate shallow root vegetative cover shall be established over drain field systems to maximize the beneficial effects

78 of evapotranspiration.

79 WB8 An injection well shall be approved for final effluent disposal provided setbacks from salt marsh/buttonwood

80 habitats and other surface water bodies cannot be met by another approved effluent disposal system or when the percolation

81 rate exceeds 30 minutes per inch or where the soil profile shows caprock underlies the site.-flBtefl-above, and provided the

82 installation if; in Installation of injection wells shall be in compliance with the following:

83 1. An injection well shall not be permitted or installed under the provisions of this part in any area designated by the

84 United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as having a single or

85 sole source aquifer. Single source aquifer is defined in subsection 62-520.200(14), F.A.C.

86 2. In areas where injection wells are approved for use, the DOH Monroe County Health Department shall be the permitting

87 authority for the engineer designed onsite sewage treatment unit and the injection well, where the estimated daily domestic

88 sewage flow will not exceed 2000 gallons per day. For establishments having a total daily sewage flow greater than 2000

89 gallons per day but not greater than 10,000 gallons per day, the Monroe County Health Department shall be the permitting

90 authority for the engineer designed treatment unit and DEP is the permitting authority for the injection well and any additional

91 associated effluent treatment device.

92 3. The ground surface within a distance of at least 10 feet in all directions around the injection well and any portion of the

93 onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall not be subject to frequent ~;urface or ground water flooding. In addition, the

94 invert of the effluent inlet pipe to the injection well shall be a minimum 18 inches above the estimated seasonal high water

95 level.

96 4. [fthere is adequate vertical and horizontal clearance to allow for proper maintenance, repair or replacement of the

97 treatment unit and injection well, such components of the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be allowed to be

98 placed beneath an elevated building.

99 5. Prior to discharge into an injection well, effluent shall pass through an unsaturated mineral aggregate filter unit as

100 described in this paragraph, or where effluent is passed through a filter unit of another design which has been determined by

101 the State Health Office to be at least equal to the mineral aggregate filter unit with regard to sewage treatment capability. The

102 unsaturated mineral aggregate filter shall be designed in accordance with the following:

103 a. Effluent application to the unsaturated mineral aggregate filter unit shall be by gravity or pressure distribution to a

104 perforated pipe distribution system as specified in Part I, Rule 64E-6.0 14, F.A.C. Such distribution system shall be placed

105 within the walls of the mineral aggregate filter and shall be placed above a mineral aggregate filter layer which shall be at least

3

106 24 inches thick. Mineral aggregate filter material shall have either an effective size in the range of 1.18 millimeters to 4.75

107 millimeters and shall have a uniformity coefficient of less than 3.5 or the material shall be equivalent in size to Florida

108 Department of Transportation aggregate classification number eight or nine. The system designer may specify additional layers

109 of filter material above or below the required 24-inch layer of filter material. The DOH Monroe County Health Department

110 shall require the installer of mineral aggregate filter systems to provide certification from the installer's mineral aggregate

111 supplier that the aggregate supplied meets requirements of this sub-paragraph. If the filter is not sealed with a lid meeting the

112 requirements for septic tank lids in 64E-6.0 13, F.A.C., the filter shall be capped with a layer of slightly limited soil no less than

113 6 nor more than 12 inches thick. The design engineer may choose to use 24 inches of phosphorous adsorbing material in lieu

114 of the 24-inch layer of filter material provided the effective size of the phosphorous adsorbing material meets the particle size

115 distribution required for unsaturated mineral aggregate filters or the effective size of the phosphorous-adsorbing material is less

116 than 1.18 millimeters.

117 b. The maximum sewage loading rate to an approved filter unit other than an unsaturated mineral aggregate filter as

118 described in this section shall be evaluated by the State Health Office based on unit design, size, filter media characteristics and

119 expected functional life of the unit.

120 c. Effluent having passed through an unsaturated mineral aggregate filter shall collect in an underdrain for gravity or

121 mechanical discharge into an injection well. The underdrain shall consist of minimum 4 inch diameter perforated drainpipe

122 which is encased within a minimum 8 inch depth of 112 to 2 inch diameter washed and durable mineral aggregate. The walls

123 and bottom of the filter unit shall be reinforced concrete or other material of adequate strength and durability to withstand

124 hydrostatic and earth stresses to which the unit will be subjected. The walls and bottom of the unit shall be made waterproof so

125 that the total volume of effluent passed through the mineral aggregate filter will be collected in the filter underdrain for

126 discharge into the injection well.

127 6. Prior to discharge into an injection well, effluent from the filter unit shall be disinfected by chlorination or other

128 disinfection method approved by the State Health Office to meet the basic disinfection requirements of this rule. Where

129 chlorination is used, a free chlorine residual of 0.5 milligram per liter measured at the point of effluent discharge after a

130 minimum chlorine contact time of IS minutes prior to discharge into the injection well, shall be maintained in the effluent at all

131 times. Disinfection shall occur in a treatment chamber dedicated to that purpose. Contact time shall be based on a peak hourly

132 flow of no less than 10% of the estimated daily sewage flow.

133 5. Prior to discharge into an injection 'A"OII, effluent :;hall be disinfected by chlorination or other di~;infection method

134 approved by the State Health Office. A minimum disinfection level equivalent to a free chlorine re~;idual of 0.5 milligram.; per

135 hter meat;ured at the point of effluent di.;charge after a minimum chlorine contact time of 15 minutes into the injection well,

136 sBal-I--ee-+ttatntained in the effluent at all timetr.

137 1.6-0 An injection well to receive an estimated daily domestic sewage flow not exceeding 2000 gallons per day shall meet

138 minimum construction criteria a., b. and c. of this sub-paragraph. The Monroe County Health Department shall be notified by

139 the well driller regarding the time when the well will be drilled so the county health department can schedule observation of

140 well construction. The DOH Monroe County Health Department shall not approve an injection well for use until the well

141 driller has certified, in writing to the DOH Monroe County Health Department, that the well has been installed in compliance

142 with the provisions of this sub-paragraph. The inspection fee for the construction of an injection well shall be $125.00.

143 a. An injection well as defined in subsection 64E-6.0 17(3), F.A.C., shall be constructed, in part, utilizing a casing of

144 polyvinyl chloride, commonly referred to as PVC. The minimum PVC casing weight and strength classification shall be

145 schedule 40 and the minimum outside diameter of the casing shall be 4 inches. Other casing materials having strength and

4

146 147 148 149

150 151 152 153 154

155 156

157 158 159 160

161 162

163 164 165

166 167 168

169 170 171 172

173 174 175 176 177

178 179

180 181 182

183 184

185

corrosion resistance properties equal to or greater than PVC schedule 40 pipe shall also be approved.

b. An open hole having a minimum diameter of 6 inches shall extend to a depth of not less than 30 feet below the bottom

of the casing.

c. The annular space between the casing and the natural rock wall of the borehole shall be grouted the full length of the

casing.

~'f-c A minimum of one maintenance visit every four months shall be made to those systems using injection wells for

effluent disposal. The visit shall include an inspection of the chlorination unit and any filter units. When an aerobic treatment

unit is a component of the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system, documents and reports required in Rule 64E-6.0 12,

F.A.C., shall also include the results of aerobic treatment unit inspections and shall include information on chlorine residuals to

assess compliance with the disinfection requirements ofthis rule.

2,.&-' Within 90 days following the discontinuation of the use of If an injection well is disGoatinued for eftluent disposal the.

the well owner shall obtain an abandonment permit, Form DH 4016, from the department. The injection well shall be properly

abandoned and plugged by filling the injection well from bottom to top with cement groutc or by filling the open hole from the

bottom of the hole to one foot below the bottom of the casing with gravel that meets the size requirements for drain field

aggregate in paragraph 64E-6.014(4)Cc), and filling the remainder of the injection well with cement grout. The Monroe County

Health Department shall be notified by the well driller, septic tank contractor, or state-licensed plumber at least two work days

prior to the time when the well will be abandoned so the county health department can schedule observation of the entire well

abandonment procedure. The DOH Monroe County Health Depatiment shall not approve an injection well abandonment until

the well driller, septic tank contractor, or state-licensed plumber has certified, in writing to the DOH Monroe County Health

Department, that the well has been abandoned in compliance with the provisions ofthis sub-paragraph. [fthe abandonment of

the well is not ready to be inspected at the time of the inspection of the abandonment of the treatment receptacles, the

inspection fee for the abandonment of an injection well shall be $75.00 and shall be paid to the department prior to the

inspection.

(2) For an aerobic treatment unit trea~ing dLlmestic sewage All',',.; in e)(ces~; llf Isnn gallLlns-j'ler day bu~not exceeding

IO,nOO gallon!; per day, where effluent from the treatment unit will be discharged tLl an engineer de:'fg~~OfJ*itm

drainfield :;)';tom, the follov,'ing rCljuirement:; ,;hall be mot:

(a) The ,;oil ab~;orption drainfiold ~;ystem;hall be set back from ';urface water bodie:; by ~ho greate:;t distance at~ainable, but

:;hail meet at least minimum setback and elevation requiremenb :ipecifieci in .mb:iection 6tI E 6.0 I g( I), F . .\.C

(b) The ov,ner or le:,soe of a :;y~;temihall clllnply v,ith the general maintenance and operational requirenwflts-4f

~ctions 61 E 6 J)! 2(2) and (3), F.AC, and any additional operation and maintenance reljuirements :;peci fled by the e;.y4effi

design engineer.

Cd) Nutrient-reducing materials have a finite life-span. Nutrient-reducing material shall be used in accordance with the

following requirements:

I. The installer shall provide certification from the nutrient reducing material supplier that the material supplied meets the

requirements of this section. The celiification shall include the capacity of the material to adsorb nutrient stated in units of

mass of nutrient adsorbed per mass of adsorbing material.

2. Where the nutrient-adsorbing material will be used to underlie a drainfield in accodance with paragraph 64E-

6.0 18(4 )(a), the certification from the nutrient-adsorbing material supplier shall include either the effective grain size in

millimeters and the uniformity coefficient of the material or a sieve analysis ofthe material showing the parcentage passing a

U.S. Standard Number 18 sieve and the percentage passing a number 60 sieve.

5

186

187

188

189

190

191 192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210 211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

3. Where the design engineer has chosen to use 24 inches of phosphorous adsorbing material in lieu ofthe 24-inch layer of

filter material as allowed in 64E-6.018(4)(c)5.a., the certification from the nutrient-adsorbing material supplier shall include

either the effective size in millimeters and the uniformity coefficient of the the material or the Florida Department of

Transportation aggregate classification number for the material.

3. The nutrient reducing material shall be replaced as necessary to ensure that the system continues to meet the minimum

level of waste treatment. The design engineer shall specify the capacity of the nutrient reducing material to adsorb nutrient

stated in units of mass of nutrient adsorbed per mass of adsorbing material at the design effluent nutrient concentration. The

design engineer shall provide an estimate of the life span for the system using the adsorption capacity and estimated sewage

flow.

iliA The owner or lessee of a performance-based treatment system shall obtain and maintain a maintenance contract with

an approved maintenance entity.

(a) All new onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems shall be inspected by an approved maintenance entity at least

two times each year.

(b) A maintenance report shall be kept by the maintenance entity. A copy of all maintenance reports shall be provided to

the county health department. The report shall include the following information:

I. The address of the system.

2. Date and time of inspection.

3. Sample collection time and date, and person who collected sample.

4. Results of all sampling.

5. Volume of effluent treated, to include total monthly and daily average.

6. Maintenance performed.

7. Problems noted with the treatment system and actions taken or proposed to overcome them.

(6) The maintenance entity of a performance-based treatment system shall cause the system to be screening tested for

nitrogen and phosphorous at least once every year. The screening test shall be one of the tests approved by the Monroe County

Health Department. If the health department is requested to conduct the screening test, an inspection fee of$75 shall be paid to

the health department prior to requesting the test. Upon the results of a sceening test that shows a violation for phosphorous or

nitrogen, the owner shall have the system sampled and tested by a laboratory certified by the Department. The Monroe County

Health Department shall require the property owner or maintenance entity to have the system sampled for nitrogen or

phosphorous or both and to have the samples tested by a laboratory cetrtified by the department when there is reason to believe

that the system is not meeting applicable performance standards.

(a) If any individual laboratory-certified test shows a total phosphorous concentration in excess of 4.0 mglL, the system

may be resampled at the owner's discretion. If the system is not resampled within 30 days of the original sampling date or the

resample shows a phosphorous concentration in excess of 4.0 or shows less than a 50% reduction of phosphorous between the

influent and effluent samples, the phosphorous adsorbing material shall be replaced as a system repair or the the system shall

be re-engineered by an engineer registered in the State of Florida. The system shall be brought into compliance with treatment

standards required at the time of system permitting.

(b) If any individual laboratory certified test shows a total nitrogen concentration in excess of 40.0 mglL, the system may

be resampled at the owner's discretion. Ifthe system is not resampled within 30 days of the original sampling date or the

resample shows a nitrogn concentration in excess of 40.0 or shows less than a 50% reduction of nitrogen between the influent

and effluent samples, the system shall be re-engineered by an engineer registered in the State of Florida. The system shall be

6

226

227 228 229

230

231 232

233 234 235 236 237

238 239 240 241

242

243 244

245

246 247

248 249

250 251

252 253 254

255 256 257 258 259

260 261 262

263

brought into compliance with treatment standards required at the time of system permitting.

Wi4'l [n conjunction with the systems specified in this section ~;ub!;ectiom; B4-k-w~) Gnd (2), F A.G." an applicant

may use the alternative systems described in subsection 64E-6.009(1), (3), (4), (5) or (6), F.A.C. An alternative system shall

meet the general intent of Part [ and Part II of this rule.

Rulemaking Authority 381.0011 (4), (13), 381. 006, 381. 0065(3)(a)JjjjIJ FS., Ch. 99-395, LOF. Law Implemented 381.0065,

381.00655 FS., Ch. 99-395, LOF. History-New 7-15-86, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.063, Amended 3-3-98,3-

22-00, 4-21-02, 11-26-06'----.

64E-6.0181 System RepairCesspit an4-lndoeuRlented System ReplaeeRlent--ami-+Ittet'im ~y.,teRl ese.

(1) Where a property is determined to have a cesspit or an undocumented system, the cesspit or undocumented system

shall be required to be replaced with an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system complying with Rule 64E-6,0 18, F,A.c';

e)(cep~ a~; provided fur in ,;ub:;ection C)),

(2) [n areas that are scheduled to be served by a central sewer by December 31, 2015, where there is documentation from

the sewer utility that the property is scheduled to be served by December 3 1, 2015 and there is documentation from the sewer

utility or from the county tax collector's office that the property owner has paid or has signed an agreement to pay for

connection to the central sewer system, an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system requiring repair shall be repaired to the

standards in this section. :;ewage faciltty before July I, 201 O;-interim con3tructi,,)fl-4aHtlaFd,; :;peci fied in ,;ubse8ffin-M~

€H++8-H3), Fd\.C:·;-for new, modified, expanded or exi:;ting onsite ,;ewage treatment·and displlsal system!; llr to replace ces!;pit:;

or undocumented system;; shall be al~

Ea) Interim :;y:;~em reljuirements :;hall be alillwed through July I ,'(Hl'I, for onsite :;ewage trea~ment and di,;po:;al :;):;tem:; in

areas that are :;cheduled to be .;crved, according to L~n adopted local comprehen:;ive plan determined to be in compliance by the

Pepartment or Gommunity Affaif';, by a central :;c\;age facility before July 1,20 I 00

(b) ,"fter J-u.ty-+,...;u)O/I, interim ,;ystem-fettt+H=ements :;hall be allowed in-ttfl--Qfea-scheduledtv~~~tral sev.age

fac+l.ity only v.heR all of the -fu+l.o'Aing conditions are met:

bAn-enforceable contract to pl'O',ide the central ';ev,age and collection !;ystem ha:; been ~

2. The contract contain:; a binding schedule fef-€Llnnection of the on:;ite ,;ewage treatment-anB-tl-it;.petiill ::ystem!.; ~

central sewage facility;-aREi

3. There i!; an en forceable requirement for abandonment 0 r the on~;ite .;ewage treatment and dispo::al ;y';~em:;.

(c) On:;ite ,;ewage treatment and dispo:;al system:; that are not scheduled to be ,;eryed in accordance with [hi:; section ';hall

provide the level of treatment reljuired in Rule 6ri E 6.0 I g, F .AC

EtB-Al-i--oRt:tte-sewage treatment and di~;fo:;al system:; in ofefati.Bn.on J LIly I, 20 10, :;\mll proyide the leye I 0 f treatment

reljuired in Iw~6.() I g, F.A.C.

(3) Interim system:; standards :;h~

(a) No system shall be repaired to meet a lower standard of treatment than the treatment standard permitted or required to

be met prior to the repair.

(b) The following general requirements apply for the use of a septic tank and sand-lined drainfield system:

1. A tank need not be replaced as part of the repair if the health unit determines the tank to be free of observable defects,

constructed of approved materials, and if such tank has an effective capacity within two tank sizes of the capacities required by

Table II. In addition, the tank shall be pumped and a solids deflection device shall be installed as a part of the outlet of the tank

7

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273 274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293 294

295

296 297

298

299

300 301

302

303

if one is not currently in place. If the tank needs to be replaced as part of the repair, it shall be replaced with a tank meeting the

requirements of Table II and 64E-6.0 13, FAe.

2. Effluent from the septic tank shall discharge to a drainfield over a sand liner meeting the standards in subparagraph 64E-

6.0 18( 4 )(b) I.

3. No part of a septic tank and sand-lined drain field system shall be located within 50 feet of the mean high water line of

tidally influenced surface water bodies or within 50 feet of the mean annual flood line of permanent nontidal surface water

bodies.

4. The drainfield component of the system must be located a minimum distance of 50 feet from salt marsh and

Buttonwood Association habitat areas where the dominant vegetation species are those typical of salt marsh communities.

5. The bottom of the drainfield shall be at least 30 inches above mean high water. At least 12 inches of the sand layer shall

be at least 18 inches above mean high water.

6. Appropriate shallow root vegetative cover shall be established over drainfield systems to maximize the beneficial effects

of evapotranspiration.

(c) The following general requirements apply for the use of an aerobic treatment unit and a sand-lined drainfield system:

I. The A Class I aerobic treatment unit shall meet the which mee!!, t.ft€-kHoatte&,-~ction, maintenance and Bf*'fi±t+tmat

reljuirement:, of suhparagraph 64 E 6.0 I ~n (3)(a)-1--c-ef-+., F.AC., and the certification, construction, operational and

maintenance requirements of Rule 64E-6.0 12, F.A.e.

I. IAhere a ClW,3 I aerobic treatment unit i:, utilized, and where final effiuem-4fYfH:rfYa+-i-s-inlo a sand lined drain field ""item,

the following general requirement:, "hall apply:

2. Effluent from the aerobic treatment unit shall discharge to a drainfield over a sand liner meeting the standards in

subparagraph 64E-6.0 18( 4)(b) 1.

a-¥or a sand lined drain field, a minimum 12 inch thick layer of quartz "and :,hall he placed heneath the bottom of the

dfai-n-fie-kt-ab:,orption surface Gnd a minimam 12 inch 'Aide and minimum 2'1 inch thick layer llfquaI17 sand :,h~J.ated

wm-iguous to the drain field sidewall ab"orption :iur~order to provide an additionalleyel ofeffiuent treatment prior to

effiuent pa:,sing into the surrounding BattIfal-limestone rock. Sand material shall haye either an effective grain size in the range

of 0.25 millimeter to 1.00 millimeter and "hall haye a uniformity coefficient of le"s than 3.5, or the material "hall he of:,uch

',ize whereby at lew,t 90 percent of the :;and par1icle" pass a U.S. Standard Number I g :,ieve and let,S than 10 percent pass a

fttlffil:t€r 60 :;iew. These matm'iab are in the USDA ';oil teKiure classes knov,n a:, medium "and and coar:,e :;and. The county

health department shall require the installer ora sand lined drain field :iy',tem to provide certification from the installer'., "and

:;upplier that the "and supplied for such type-of iw,tallation meets the requirement:, of this 'illb[,ection.

IJr. No part of the system shall be within 25 feet of the mean high water line of tidally influenced surface water bodies or

within 25 feet of the mean high water line er4inary high water line of permanent nontidal surface water bodies lake", pondS+~f

~+lon tidal :iurface ~or salt marsh and Buttonwood Association habitat areas where the dominant vegetation species

are those typical of salt marsh communities.

±...,Cc The bottom surface of the sand layer shall be at least 12 inches above mean high water.

d. The maximum sev,-age loading ra~e to an aerohic treatment unit absorption bed drain field with underlying sand liner

,hall be I. I gallons per ,;quare foot per day.

.i,e-c-Appropriate shallow root vegetative cover shall be established over drainfield systems to maximize the beneficial

effects of evapotranspiration.

(d) The following general requirements apply far the use af an aerobic treatment unit and an injection well as defined in

8

304

305 306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313 314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330 331

332

333

334

335

336 337

338

339

340

341

342

343

64E-6.0 17, F.A.C.

I. The Class I aerobic treatment unit shall meet the certification, construction, operational and maintenance requirements

of Rule 64E-6.0 12, F.A.C.

2. Effluent from the aerobic treatment unit shall discharge to filter, disinfection chamber and injection well located,

designed, installed, operated and maintained in accordance with paragraph 64E-6.018(4)(c).

;&, Provided a CIa:;:; I aerobic treatment unit i" u~ilized and provided emuent from the treatment uni~, prior to di-;charge into

aR--tRjection \"ell, ~ed through a mineral aggregate·filter unit a:; de:;cribed in sUBparagraph 6/1E 6c~)~~~F

~emuent i::f*lG:;ed through a filter unit of another de:;ign which hl~determined by the State Hw+tlt-Gff'iw-w-be-at

l-east-~~ineral aggregate filter unit '",ith regard to sewage treatment capability, an injection well :;hall be appnl\etl-i-n

8l+1-lj7~,with the follov,ing:

a-c--A:tl- injection v,ell :;hall not be permitted or in:;talled under the prO\'i:;ion:; oCthi:; part in any area de:;ignated by the

l 'nited State-; Environmental Prlltec~ion :\genc) llr the Plorida Depar~ment or Environmental Protectinn a:; having a :;ingle or

:;ole :;llurce aqui fer. Single ,;nurce aquifer i,; defined in :;ubsection 62 520,20()( I 'I), L\,C,

b, In area:; v. here injection Hells arc approved for woe, the DOH p.lonroe County Health Department shall he the permitting

~}fthe aerobic treatment unit, the filter unit and the injection well, where the e:;timated daily domet;tic sewage Atwr-wi+!

RBt---exceed J-O()() gallon,; per da)o-Idur establi:;hment:; having a total daily ,;ewage flov, greater than 200n gallun,; per day but not

greater than 10,000 gallon:; per day, the p, lonroe County Health Department ,;hall be the permitting authority for the aerobic

treatment unit and the filter unit and [)rP is the permitting agent for the injection well and any additional a:;:;uciated emuent

treatment device, The emuent from the treatment lIni~ permitted by ~he DOH p,lunroe County Health Department shall not

exceed 20 mg I eSOD, llr 20 mg. I ,;uspended;olid:; on a permit~ed annual average ba~;i:; and shall have di:;infectilln in

accurdance 'kith sub -;ubparagraph 64 E 6,U 1 g I (3)(a)2,h" F.A, C, prior to di:,charge into any injection well.

~interior of the aerobic treatment unit, the top "urface of the mineral aggregate filter ~;oil,co\er, and the ground

"urface within a di:;tance of at least 1 () feet in all directions around the injection v,'ell, filter unit and aerobic treatment unit ~,hall

not be :;ubject to surface or ground '",ater flooding. In addition, the imel~emuent inlet pipe to the injection well shall be

a minimum I g inches above the estimated sea~;onal high wa~er level.

d. If there i:; adequate vertical and horizontal clearance to allo',',' for proper maintenance, repair or replacement ufthe

aerobic treatment unit, filter unit and injectilln ',','ell, .,uch components of the on,;ite ,;ewage trea~ment and disposal system Ghall

be alhn>,ed to be placed beneath an elevated building.

e, I f a mineral aggregate filter a:; referred to in [;ubparagraph 6tI E 6.0 I g 1 (3)(a)2" V.AG., i:; utilized, ernuent di:;charge

frllm the aerobic unit shall be by gravity or pres!;ure di:;tribution to a perforated pipe distriblltilln system as specified in Part I,

RH+e-6'1E 6,0111, V.A.C.Such di:;triblltion sy.;tem sha-1-l--he--placed within the walh--~mineral aggregatc---fi-l-tef--aHd ';hall be

placed above a mineral aggregate filter layer-~.;hall be at least 211 inche:; thicl<- i\lineral aggregate filter material shall have

either an effective :;ize in the-range uf2J6 millimeter'; ~ll 11.75 millimeters and :;hall have a uniformity €BG-ffi-B-ient of les:, than

3,5 or the material shall be equivalent in :;ize to Florida Department of Tran:;portation aggregate classification number c-tgh-t-Bf

nine, The system de:;igner may ,;pecify additional laye!':, of filter material above or below the required 24 inch layer of filter

material. The DOH p,40nrne Cuunty Health Department :;hall require the installer of mineral aggregate filter -;ystems to pfllvide

celiificatioFl from the installer's mineral aggregate :;lIpplier that the aggregate 3upplied meets requiremc-n-ts---ftf-thi:; sub

paragraph. I fthe filter is not-sealed with a lid meeting the requirement:; off*lragFaph-6'l E 6,0 13~~-the filter shall be

~~ightly limited soil no les:; than 6 Flf}!"-fflBfe than 17 inches thicl"

f The maximum sewage loading rate to the mineral aggregate filter shall be 5,S gallons per square foot per day based upon

9

344

345

346

347

348

349

350 351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

the top surface area of the filter layer. The maximum !:ewage loading rete to an approved filter unit other than a m-meFat

aggregate filter a,: descrihed in thi,; ::ec~ion shall he evaluated hJ" the State Health Office haf:ed EtH--URtt--Jes.i-gR, si,~e, filter media

characteri:;tic" and expected functillnal Ii Fe 0 r the un it

g, Effluent having pa':!:ed through a mineral aggregate filter :ihall collect in an undordrain for gravity or mechanical

discharge into an injection woll. The underdrain ,:hall con::iGt of minimum II inch diameter perforated drainpipo ""hich it;

encased 'Aithin a minimum g inch depth of I ) to 2 inch diameter wa::hed and durable aggregate, The wall:; and hottom of the

fi ItoI' unit shall be reinforced concrete or othffffii±tefial 0 f adequate :itrength antHtHfab·i-l-ity-te-witkitand hyJF~ and earth

.:tres,:e!; to which the unit v,'ill be ,;ubjected, The watts-dnd bottom of the unit ,:hall be mGde waterproof:io thGHh€-ffita.l.-~

of effluent pa!ified through the minerai aggregate filter '.viii be collected in the filter underdrain for di!:charge into the injectioo

we+k

h, Prior to discharge into an injection well, effluent frum the filter unit ::hall ho disinroc~ed by chlorinatilln or other

di:iinfection method approved hy the State Health Office, ,\ minimum di:;infection level equivalen~ to a free chlorine residual

ofO,S milligram per liter mea::ured at the pllint-oremuent discharge after a minimum chlorine contact time nC 15 minute!: intll

the injection well, :;hall he maintained in the effluent at all time:;,

b--r\n injection well to receive-an-estimated daily domestic ::e-wage-~~eeding 2000 gallon:; per day shat-H:neet

minimum Clln:itruction criteria (I), (II) and (III) of this ::uh paragraph, The DOH i\lonroe County Health Department shall not

apfffiWe an injection well for Wie until the well driller has certified, in writing to the DOli i\lonroe County I Iealth Depal1ment,

that the '"ell has been installed in comp~iance with the provisions ufthis sub paragraph, The inspection fee for the cun!itructiun

of an injection v,ell shall be $125,00,

(I) .\n injection '.veil at> defined in sub:iectiun (]/I E (],O 17(3), F,AC., ,;hall he con:;tructed, in part, utilizing a ca:;ing of

polyvinyl chloriJe, communly referred to a!; PVC. The minimum PVC ca!:ing weight and Jtrength clw::;ification :;ft.a.I-i-.he

::chedule '10 and the minimum outside diameter of the caf;ing shall he II inche!;, Other ca:iing materials having ::trength and

corro:;ion resistance propertieti equal to or greater than PVC [;chedule 110 pipe :ihall also he approved,

(II) An open hole having a minimum diameter of6 inches .;hall extend to a depth of not less tkn 30 feet-Below the bottom

of the casing,

(III) The annular space hetween the ca::ing and the natural rock wall orthe borehole shall he grouted the fuilleng~h of the

~

j, A minimum of one maintenance visit every four month:; ::hall he made to those system:; using injection well:: for effluent

disposal. In addition to the ':tandard aerohic treatment unit maintenance vi:iit, the visit shall include an inspection urthe

chlorination ancl filter units. Documents and report-s-required in Rule ME 6,017, F,A.C., :;hall also include the re::ult:: llfthcse

inspections and shall inc+ude informatilln on chlorine re:iiduals to asset:s compliance ""ith the disinfection requirements ofthit:

ruI-e-,

Ie Ifan injection well is dif;continued for effluent d-i&put;al use such injection we-l-l-shall he properly ahandoned and

plugged hy filling the injection well from bo~t()m to top with cement grout

(b) A performance bw:ed treC'.~ment .:ystem de[;igned and cer~ified by a professional engineer, licensed in the !;~ate, a::

producing an effluent meeting at a minimum the treatment standard:i for a ::;-stel11 de:iigned in accordance with paragraph ME

(],O 1 g I (3)(a), F ,A,C., and permit~od, constructed ancl monitored in accordance with Part IV,

Rulemaking Authority 381.0011 (4), (13), 381. 0065 (3)(a)J:JJiJl FS , Ch. 99-395, LOF Law Implemented 381.0065, 381. 00655

FS, Chs. 99-395, 2001-337, LOF History-New 3-3-98, Amended 3-22-00,4-21-02,5-24-04,11-26-06'----,

10

383 64E-6.0182 Coordinated Permitting.

384 Chapter 28-20, F.A.C., and the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) between Monroe County, the Department of

385 Community Affairs, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Department of Health, including the Monroe County

386 Health Department, dated July 25, 1997, are herein incorporated by reference, and is available by contacting the department.

387 Chapter 28-20, F.A.C., and the MOU establish a permit allocation system for development and a coordinated permit review

388 process. Chapter 28-20, F.A.C., and the MOU prohibit new system construction permits to serve new residential development

389 that would allow development in excess of the number of permits that Monroe County may issue under its policy.

390 Rulemaking Authority 381.0011(4), (13), 3U00ff,38 I. 0065 (3)(a), (4)(1)/1ij FS., Ch. 99-395, LOF. Law Implemented 154.01,

391 381.0011(4),381.006(7),381.0065,381.00655,386.01, 386.03, 386.041 FS., Ch. 99-395, LOF. History-New 3-3-98, Amended

392 3-22-00.

II

# 10-09 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10: 16'45 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: LTAR and Alternative Drainfield Geometry for PBTS

Rule Sections: 64E-6.028

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New:

Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

No one has ever used these provisions of the PBTS rule related to alternative drainfield technology,

Eb Roeder, DOH

The proposed changes delete the long term acceptance rate provision of the rule.

1 0-09--64E-6.028_L TAR_adjustments.doc (See Attached)

deletes an unused provision of the rule

none 8/31/2009 7/15/2010

Comments: 7/15/10 TRAP passed to variance. Discussion revealed that no applicant has ever used this provision of the rule in over 10 years. Rather than go to Variance committee with proposal, we are going to delete the provision and send back to the TRAP

Ready for Rule :~

In Rule Rule Date:

64E-6.028 Location and Installation. Performance-based treatment systems shall be installed in compliance with the following,

(I) through (2) No change (3) Drainfield de~;igns: rhe follov,ing alteration~; to drain field requirement; ';hall be allov .. ed filr pres:;lIre do:;ed ,;ystem~;

~ faj-hong Term ,\cceptance Rate, abo known a:; LTAR LTAR',; for ,;idewall infiltrative ,;lIri'ace:; :;hall not exceed 1.25

time:; the bottom infiltrative :;urfilCe LTAR filr the;ame soil cla:;r;iiication, \l,'here the :mil clas,;ification varier; within the drain field .;oil profile, the :;idewall L'L\R ,;hall be adju:;~ed accordingly. Sidev,all infiltrative :;urfaces may be utili,~ed oo+y when a .;y:;tem i:; (h;ed a malCimum 0 f two time:; per day and the trench width ir; no greater than 1 g inffiBs-c

~septic tank effluent, maxim~lIl~ LTARyalues shall not exceed the ~Cfl-He--tlw-·ba:;eline :;tatlt!ttftl--ffll' the ,;oil ~fication ifl-question. (see Table IX) t'AillT~

Bottom Side.,,,.allinfiltrative Surfu6e--MttMI11Um Equivalent LT,\R':; Side LT\R: Bottllm LT\R ratfe---'---·-----~· ----~- 1.25 ----+&- ----+~)___-1.25 --~

0,65 Current trench bottom LT.\R (gal sq. ft da4·----+~-~--------G-c9+l- ---1:i-~------~

Tren6h v,idth (in6he:;) - --7"36&,:tJO'l-!O-----=3H'6)-;1,(fI1H+) -------c'-fr.+f+I------c*"+ItI 36()() 36,()O Effe6tive ,;idev.all height (inche:;) .. g,OO g,O() gOO g,OO

Total ';idewall height (inche:;) - 12,00 -1f-=2Oc-,(fI1)(+1--------t+.-f-l+l----+&.'I-i'I-i 12,IlO 12,00 (JtI2 Revi~;ed bllttllm LL\R (gal sq, ft day) (J,n ----+h5-&-------+I-Act-------~

New :;idewall LT.\R (gaL :;q, ft day) - (J,96 0.72 052 (),2g

Atotntlte:; to Table--+X-o Flllltnote I. De:;ign:; that utilize llnr;ite open trench hlll'izuntal and -\'erti6al hydraulic conductivity testing to adjust the bottllm and sidewall LT.\R'.; shall be acceptable, The LTAR can be modified; howe\er, the "ide LT,\R: bottom LTAR--fattB-6iffifH:t! C*B€ed 1.25 filI'I ike :;oils, Footnote 2, Der;igns that utilize established modeling technique:; to determine the maximum effective capa8ty-(de~;ign daily flow) ora de';igned drain field sy';~em shall be acceptable, Pootnote 3, The horizontal and vertical projection:; of inclined .;urface:; cc.nnot be con:;idered for both :;ide'vI'ali and bottom credi~ in the;ume crus:; 3ection. The de:;igner mu:;~ ;;elect one or the other. Footnote II. The current trench boHom I .T.\R's are from Part I, Table III, and are referred ~o a~; maximum :;ewage loading rate'; in Tab Ie II I. Footnote 5. ,\b;;orption bed:; ;;holl be allov.ed providing the LT,\R',; are adjusted accordingly,

~ollgh (e) No change (4) through (5) enumbered as (3) through (4) No change

Rulemaking Authority 381.0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381.0065,386,041 FS History-New 2-3-98, Amended 3-22-00,6-25-09,

# 10-10 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10:16:57 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Site Plans, Mounds

Rule Sections: 64E-6.004, 5, 8, 9, 15

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap:

Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

This incorporates interpretive memos and clean-up some existing language related to showing and determining MAFL and other setback features, Mound size determination, setback to shallow swales.

DOH Staff

The proposed changes clarify what setback features need to be shown on large parcels, when MAFL is not required to be determined, sizing systems based on most restrictive soil beside and beneath the drainfield, deleting the setback from swales that control mound runoff.

(See Attached)

amends site plans in 004 and 015, amends setbacks in 005, amends system sizing in 008 and 009.

the site plan amendments should relieve some applicants from MAFL determination and clarify when various features are required to be shown. Could increase system cost by sizing systems based on sidewall contact as well as soil beneath drainfield. 1/28/2010 7/15/2010

7/15/2010 9/2/2010

Comments: 7/15/10 TRAP passed to Variance with changes to eliminate requirement for make and model of existing drainfield product. 7/20/10 Made changes per TRAP and sent to Variance. 9/2/10 Variance Comments: STI-ok; HBI-no comment; DEP-good; REI-ok; ENG-ok; CHD-ok; SHO-ok;

Ready for Rule 0 In Rule D Rule Date:

64E-6.004 Application for System Construction Permit. (I) through (2) No change (3) through (3)(a)3. No change 4. If an individual lot is five acres or greater, the applicant may draw a minimum one acre or larger detail parcel to scale

showing all required features. If the required features are within 75 feet of the one acre or larger detail parcel, the distance to the feature must be shown but need not be drawn to scale. The location of any public drinking water well, as defined in paragraph 64E-6.002(44)(b), F.A.C., within 200 feet of the one acre or larger detail parcel shall also be shown, with the measured distance indicated from the system to the well., or the minimum 'lize Jrav,ing nece';:;ary to rrnrerly c)(hibi~ all required feature';, whiche\er i.; larger. The one acre or larger detail parcel must be large enough to accommodate a daily sewage flow allowance equal to the cumulative capacity of all systems within the parcel. The applicant must also show the location of that one acre or larger detail parcel inside the total site ownership.

5. No change (b) through (t) No change (4) through (9) No change

Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065(3)(a), 489.553(3) FS Law Implemented 381. 0065, 489.553 FS History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly IOD-6.44, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95,5-14-96,2-13-97, Formerly IOD-6.044, Amended 11-19-97, 3-22-00, 11-26-06,6-25-09.

64E-6.00S Location and Installation. All systems shall be located and installed so that with proper maintenance the systems function in a sanitary manner, do not create sanitary nuisances or health hazards and do not endanger the safety of any domestic water supply, groundwater or surface water. Sewage waste and effluent from onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems shall not be discharged onto the ground surface or directly or indirectly discharged into ditches, drainage structures, groundwaters, surface waters, or aquifers. To prevent such discharge or health hazards:

(I) Systems and septage stabilization facilities established after the effective date of the rule shall be placed no closer than the minimum distances indicated for the following:

(a) through (e) No change (t) Fifteen feet from the design high-water line of retention areas, detention areas, or swales designed to contain standing

or flowing water for less than 72 hours after a rainfall or the design high-water level of normally dry drainage ditches or normally dry individual-lot storm water retention areas. Excluded from this setback requirement are swales designed only to divert the runoff from drainfield mounds or fill systems.

(2) through (9) No change

Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065 (3)(a), 489.553, 489.557(1) FS Law Implemented 381.0065,489.553 FS History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly IOD-6.46, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.046, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98,3-22-00, 5-24-04, 6-25-09.

64E-6.008 System Size Determinations. (I) hrough (4) No change (5) The minimum absorption area for standard subsurface drainfield systems, graywater drainfield systems, and filled

systems shall be based on estimated sewage flows and Table III so long as estimated sewage flows are 200 gallons per day or higher. When estimated sewage flows are less than 200 gallons per day, system size shall be based on a minimum of200 gallons per day.

Table III No change Footnotes to Table III:

I. through 4. No change 5. Where more than one soil texture classification is encountered within a soil profile and it is not removed as part ofa

replacement, drain field sizing for standard subsurface drainfield systems and fill drainfield systems shall be based on the most restrictive soil texture in contact with the sidewalls or bottom of the drainfield or encountered-within 24 inches of the bottom of the drain field absorption surface.

(6) No change

Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065 (3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381.0065 FS History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly IOD-6.48, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.048, Amended 11-19-97,3-22-00,9-5-00, 11-26-06,6-25-09.

64E-6.009 Alternative Systems. (1) through (2) No change (3) Mound systems - are used to overcome certain limiting site conditions such as an elevated seasonal high water table,

shallow permeable soil overlying slowly permeable soil and shallow permeable soil located over creviced or porous bedrock.

Special installation instructions or design techniques to suit a paI1icuiar site shall, using the criteria in subsection 64E-6.004(4), F.A.C., be specified on the construction permit in addition to the following general requirements.

(a) through (c) No change (d) Where the soil material underlying a mound system is of a similar textural material as that used in system construction,

the mound drainfield size shall be based on estimated sewage flows as specified in Rule 64E-6.008, F.A.C., Table [ and upon the quality of fill material utilized in the mound system. When estimated sewage flows are calculated to be less than 200 gallons per day, specifications for system design shall be based on a minimum flow of200 gallons per day. Maximum sewage loading rates for soils used in mound construction shall be in compliance with the following:

Fill Material

Sand; Coarse Sand; aRtl-Loamy Coarse Sand; and Fine Sand

P:ine Sand

Sandy Loam; Coarse Sandy Loam; and Loamy Sand

Maximum Sewage Loading Rate to Mound Drain Trench Bottom Surface in gallons Per square foot per day

0.80

(hW

0.65

Maximum Sewage Loading Rate to Mound Absorption Bed Bottom Surface in gallons per square foot per day

0.60

4-#)

0.40

Fine Sandy Loam; Very 0.35 0.25 Fine Sand; Loamy Fine Sand; and Loamy Very Fine Sand

(e) \\here meBeFatety limited ::oil:: L1nderl-~lhe mllund-wi1hin 36 inche:;.-ofthe hottom-ofthe drainfi-e-hl-;-Qdrainfield sizing shall be based on the most restrictive soil texture existing in contact with the sidewalls or bottom of the drainfield or in the profile to a depth of 36 inches below the bottom of the drainfield. Drainfield sizing based on soils below natural grade shall be based on ~-Table I1I'-.. for ';oil loading fi:lte;; Drainfield sizing based on fill material above natural grade shall be based on the soil loading rates in subparagraph Cd).

(f) through U) No change (4) through (10) No change

Rulemaking Authority 381.0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381.0065 FS History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly I OD-6. 49, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.049, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98,3-22-00,4-21-02,6-18-03, 11-26-06, 6-25-09.

64E-6.01S Permitting and Construction of Repairs. All repairs made to a failing onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be made only with prior knowledge and written approval from the DOH county health department having jurisdiction over the system. Approval shall be granted only if all of the following conditions are met:

(I) Any property owner or lessee who has an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system which is improperly constructed or maintained, or which fails to function in a safe or sanitary manner shall request from the DOH county health department, either directly or through their agent, a permit to repair the system prior to initiating repair of the system. A permit shall be issued on Form DH 4016, 10/96, hereby incorporated by reference, only after the submission of an application accompanied by the necessary exhibits and fees. Form DH 4015, 10/96, hereby incorporated by reference, shall be used for this purpose, and can be obtained from the department. Applications shall contain the following information:

(a) A site plan showing property dimensions, the existing and proposed system configuration and location on the property, the building location, potable and non-potable water lines, within the existing and proposed system drain field repair area, the ge-ReFa1 slope of the property, property lines and easements, any obstructed areas, any private or public wells, or any surface water bodies and storm water systems in proximity to the onsite sewage system which restricts replacement or relocation of the drainfield system. For this paragraph, "in proximity" shall mean closer to the proposed or existing system than the distance of the current required setback in Table V plus 25 feet. The existing drainfield type shall be described. For example, mineral aggregate, non-mineral aggregate, chambers, or other.

(b) through (f) No change (2) through (12) No change

Rulemaking Authority 381.0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381.0065,386.041 FS History-New 3-17-92, Amended 1-3-95,2-13-97, Formerly IOD-6.0571, Amended 2-3-98,3-22-00,5-24-04,11-26-06,6-25-09.

# 10-11 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 101706 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: peTS design standards

Rule Sections: 64E-6.0295

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

Current PBTS data are listed in a variety of ways based on the type of test data they submitted.

Eb Roeder, DOH

The proposed changes Formalizes the way the department will compile performance data, requires reclassification of all PBTS systems.

10-11--64E-6.0295_PBTS_design_standards.doc (See Attached)

Formalizes the way the department will compile performance data, requires reclassification of all PBTS systems.

None as existing data will be reviewed to determine system classification. Technology owners who wish to improve their classification may choose to have additional testing. 6/29/2010 7/15/2010

7/15/2010 9/2/2010

Comments: 7/15/10 TRAP passed to Variance Committee. Eb will discuss with Daman regarding 1,000,000 colony forming units on line 63.

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

9/2/10 Variance Comments: REI-ok; ENG-ok; CHD-ok, SHO-Fix 2 typos (done); STI-No problem; HBI-no comment 9/10/10 I ncorporated changes from Eb and Damann's meeting.

[J ,-: u

1 Issue: Provide a common way to assess treatment performance data 2 • Formalizes that the Bureau will have a data compilation on treatment performance 3 • Initiates a reclassification process by Sept 30, 20 II, so that data requirements are consistent between treatment 4 systems, and establishes data requirements for this reclassification. 5 • Incorporates HSES 10-0 I for interim review of performance claims, with the additional provision that for nitrogen 6 reduction, percent reduction is the parameter to be looked at 7 • Clarifies that differences between different sources of data (controlled testing vs home installations) will be addressed 8 in the future, around the time when phase II has significantly advanced and the data compilation will have provided 9 data. Soil treatment effectiveness will be addressed after the final report from phase II of the nitrogen study.

10 11 64E-6.0295 Innovative System Reclassification. 12 (I) Following the installation and monitoring of the number of systems allowed by the innovative system development 13 permit, the applicant may request reclassification of their innovative system by the Bureau of On site Sewage Programs. 14 Requests for reclassification as an alternative system component and design shall be made in accordance with subsection 64 E-15 6.009(7), F.A.C. Requests for reclassification as a performance-based treatment system shall include the following: 16 (a) Results and analysis of monitoring of the systems installed. 17 (b) Observations of system performance. 18 (c) Maintenance, repairs or modifications performed on any systems. 19 (d) Comments from the system operators or users. 20 (e) Comments from the design engineers who designed the individual system designs. 21 (f) Comments from the county health departments in the counties where the systems were installed. 22 (g) Specification of the proposed classification as performance-based. 23 (h) Rationale for the proposed type of classification desired. 24 (i) Proposed monitoring protocol. 25 U) A sample manual addressing the siting, design, installation, inspection, operation, maintenance and abandonment 26 procedures. 27 (2) The Bureau of On site Sewage Programs shall process the request in accordance with Chapter 120, F.S. The department 28 shall approve the request only if the department is satisfied that the system will reliably perform to the standards desired under 29 normal operating conditions as demonstrated by the information provided. 30 (3) The Bureau of On site Sewage Programs shall compile data obtained for treatment components during innovative 31 system testing and other testing and publish characteristics of performance. These characteristics shall include: 32 (a) system description 33 Cb) pollutant monitored 34 Cc) average third-party performance evaluation results offull-scale systems when tested where influent and effluent 35 conditions are monitored over a period of at least five months and at least ten influent and effluent data points are available in 36 separate weeks. The characteristics will be flow, influent, effluent and fraction removed. Where multiple such tests are 37 available, the simple average of the tests shall be reported, unless hydraulic residence times varied by a factor of two or more. 38 Cd) third-party field testing data in Florida within the previous IS years as available, characterized by average, median, 75th

39 and 90th percentile. Where both influent and effluent were measured at the same system at the same time, an average removal 40 effectiveness shall be estimated. 41 Ce) first and second-party field testing data in Florida within the previous 15 years as electronically available, characterized 42 by average, median, 75th and 90th percentile. Where both influent and effluent were measured at the same system at the same 43 time, an average removal effectiveness shall be estimated. 44 (4) innovative and performance-based treatment systems currently in use shall be reclassified by September 30, 2011, and 45 the data reported according to section (3) screened, according to the following criteria. 46 Ca) data for(3)(c) that were not gathered over a period of at least five months with at least ten influent and effluent data 47 points available in separate weeks within the previous 15 years will not be considered. 48 Cb) innovative and performance-based treatment systems that have data to be considered after subsection Ca) has been 49 implemented and at least 30 data points combined in (3) Cd) and Ce), or that have at least 50 data points combined in (3) Cd) and 50 Ce), shall be eligible for reclassification as non-innovative performance based treatment systems. Systems that have fewer data, 51 shall be reclassified as innovative, provided that there is an entity willing to provide the required information. 52 Cc) information required by section (I) is on file with the Bureau of On site Sewage Programs 53 (5) by September 30, 20 II, the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs shall propose rule language for performance-based 54 treatment systems that addresses differences between results from testing with controlled and uncontrolled flows for the review 55 of performance-based treatment systems and design safety factors. The Bureau of On site Sewage Programs shall propose rule 56 language to address consideration of soil, provided that the final report of the Phase II of study required by HB500 I of the 57 2010 Florida legislature is completed. In the interim the following review standards shall apply in evaluating proposed 58 performance of treatment components: 59 Ca) for cB005, TSS, average effluent concentrations of results from (3)Cc), subject to (4), or from combined results of

60 (3)(d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not 61 be considered in determining compliance with the provisions of 64E-6.028, F.A.C. 62 (b) for fecal coliform, effluent concentration from results from (3)(c), subject to (4), or from combined (3)(d) and (e), shall 63 meet both the average annual treatment performance standard proposed and the geometric mean shall meet the 99.99 percent 64 reduction for secondary and advanced secondary treatment standards and 99.9999 percent reduction for advanced wastewater 65 treatment standards. Soil treatment effectiveness may be considered up to advanced secondaIY treatment standards if the site-66 specific design includes monitoring to verify performance. 67 (c) for total nitrogen, average removal effectiveness from results from (3)(c), subject to (4), or from at least 20 data points 68 combined results from (3)(d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard of the system. For the 69 purposes of this section, this standard shall be 50% for advanced secondary, 62% for Florida Keys, and 90% for advanced 70 wastewater treatment standards. Where average removal effectiveness cannot be determined, average effluent concentrations 71 from combined results of (3)(d) and (e) shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment 72 effectiveness shall not be considered 73 (d) for total phosphorus, systems treating all domestic sewage or fractions of the graywater of an establishment in at least 74 one treatment receptacle may be deemed to comply with the average effluent concentrations for advanced secondary treatment 75 performance standards. For other systems, average effluent concentration from results from (3)(c), subject to (4), or from 76 combined results of(3)(d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed, or the design 77 engineer may provide data showing that the influent concentration meets the average annual treatment performance standard 78 proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not be considered in determining compliance with the provisions of 64E-6.028, 79 F.A.C. nor for compliance with the provisions of64E-6.018, F.A.C. 80

81 Rulemaking Authority 381.0011(13),381.006, 381.0065(3)(a) FS. Law Implemented 381.0065,381.0067,386.041 FS. 82 History-New 6-18-03.

2

# 10-13 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10:17:24 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Portable Restroom and Holding Tank Permitting

Rule Sections: 64E-6.0101

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

The current permitting fees for permanently placing a portable restroom accumulate to $230 (the same as the fee for placing a stationary holding tank) and may be excessive.

Eric Anderson, Portable Restroom Industry

The proposed changes require a permit fee only ($55) for permanent placement of a portable restroom. The proposal also provides that one permit can cover all permanent portable restrooms or all stationary holding tanks at a single site.

10-13--64E-6.0101_ TemporarLSystem_permitting_fees.doc

(See Attached)

Sets the fee for a permit for a permanent portable restroom at $35. one permit covers all portable restrooms or stationary holding tanks at a single site.

reduces the permit fees for permanent portable restrooms to $35 from $230. Also allows multiple toilets or holding tanks on a single permit. 7/15/2010

o

1 64E-6.0101 Portable Restrooms and Portable or Stationary Holding Tanks. 2 (1) through (6) No change 3 (7) Portable Restrooms, Portable Holding Tanks, Stationary Holding Tanks, Mobile Restroom Trailers, Mobile Shower 4 Trailers, and Portable Sinks. 5 (a) The department shall allow, on a temporary basis, portable restrooms, mobile restrooms, mobile shower trailers, and 6 portable or stationary holding tanks for fairs, carnivals, revivals, field locations, encampments and other locations which lack 7 permanent structures where people congregate for short periods of time, provided the construction, maintenance, and utilization 8 of such systems conform to the general provisions of this chapter. Portable restrooms, portable or stationary holding tanks or 9 other restroom facilities shall be provided at commercial and residential building sites for the duration of construction any time

10 workers are present, and shall not be bound by the definition of temporary. All required restroom facilities shall remain 11 accessible whenever the intended users are present. Where the department determines that no health hazard will result, pOitable 12 restrooms, portable holding tanks, stationary holding tanks, mobile restroom trailers, mobile shower trailers, and portable sinks 13 shall be permitted meeting setbacks that are 50% of the setback requirements of subsections 64E-6.005( 1) through (3), F.A.C., 14 provided portable or stationary holding tanks shall be placed within secondary containment structures with a containment 15 capacity of no less than 110% of the total waste capacity of the holding tank. For purposes of this rule, a holding tank is any 16 sealed, water tight fixture for receiving and storing domestic wastewater from plumbing fixtures in remote locations or at 17 building sites or special events. For purposes of this rule, a portable restroom is a transportable, self contained static or flush-18 type toilet constructed to promote a sanitary environment at remote locations, building sites or special events, comprised of at 19 least a waste storage receptacle, a riser and toilet seat and a protective enclosure. Portable restrooms, mobile restrooms, and 20 mobile shower trailers at building sites or at a location for a temporary period of time do not require a permit from the 21 department but must comply with the provisions of this rule. A construction permit (DH 4016) shall be obtained before placing 22 or installing any stationary holding tanks. An application fee, permit fee and an inspection fee shall be paid pursuant to 23 approval of the installation of the stationary holding tank. One permit shall be required for all stationary holding tanks at a 24 single site provided all holding tanks are shown on the site plan and the number and capacity of all holding tanks is listed on 25 the permit. 26 (b) The department shall approve, for permanent use or placement, portable restrooms or stationary holding tanks at 27 continually used locations where restroom facilities are desirable for the promotion of public health and where conventional 28 facilities are neither available nor practical. Examples of such locations would be boat ramps, remote areas of golf courses, 29 office or sales trailers, or other places where people congregate which meet the above criteria. A construction permit (DH 30 4016) shall be obtained before placing or installing any portable restroom or stationary holding tank for permanent use. A 31 permit fee shall be paid pursuant to approval of the permanent installation ofa portable restroom. One permit shall be required 32 for all portable restrooms at a single site and shall indicate the number of restrooms permitted. The portable restroom service 33 company providing portable restrooms or stationary holding tanks shall be responsible for maintenance of the unit and removal 34 if conventional facilities are made available. 35 (c) through (x) No change 36 (8) No change

37 Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065 (3)(a) , 489.553(3) FS Law Implemented 381.0065,386.041 FS History-New 5-24-04, 38 Amended 11-26-06,6-25-09, 4-28-10L--'

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

64E-6.030 Fees. (I) The following fees are required for services provided by the department. (a) Application and plan review for construction permit for new system. (b) Application and approval for existing system, if system inspection is not required. (c) Application and Existing System Evaluation. (d) Application for permitting of a new performance-based treatment system. (e) Site evaluation. (D Site re-evaluation. (g) Permit or permit amendment for new system, modification or repair to system. (h) Permit for permanent placement of a portable restroom.

~(h) through (x) renumbered as (i) through (y) No change (2) No change

$100 $35 $50

$125 $115

$50 $55 $35

51 Rulemaking Authority 154.06(1),381.0066,489.557(1) FS Law Implemented 381.0065,381.0066,489.557 FS History-New 52 2-3-98, Amended 3-22-00, 4-21-02, 5-24-04, 11-26-06, 9-24-07 L-'

# 10-14 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10:17:36 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Setback from DEP water Main

Rule Sections: 64E-6.005

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

While the current rule 64E-6.005 provides numerous variations on setbacks to water lines, the DEP rules require a 10-foot setback between onsite systems and water mains defined in 62-555.314

Shawn Wilson, DOH Charlotte CHD

The proposed changes requires onsite sewage systems to meet a 10ft setback from water mains including "".fire hydrant leads; and service lines that are under the control of a public water system and that have an inside diameter of three inches or greater."

1 0-14--64E-6.005_Setback_from_DEP _Water_Mains.doc

(See Attached)

Requires OSTDS to be 10 feet from public-water-system­controlled water mains that are 3" diameter or larger.

Could require site plan adjustments when 10 feet of setback is not available. Should not have a practical impact as DEP already has the requirement. 8/9/2010

D D

1 64E-6.005 Location and Installation. 2 All systems shall be located and installed so that with proper maintenance the systems function in a sanitary manner, do not 3 create sanitary nuisances or health hazards and do not endanger the safety of any domestic water supply, groundwater or 4 surface water. Sewage waste and effluent from onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems shall not be discharged onto the 5 ground surface or directly or indirectly discharged into ditches, drainage structures, groundwaters, surface waters, or aquifers. 6 To prevent such discharge or health hazards: 7 (I) No change 8 (2) Systems shall not be located under buildings or within 5 feet of building foundations, including pilings for elevated 9 structures, or within 5 feet of mobile home walls, swimming pool walls, or within 5 feet of property lines except where

10 property lines abut utility easements which do not contain underground utilities, or where recorded easements are specifically 11 provided for the installation of systems for service to more than one lot or property owner. 12 (a) No change 13 (b) Systems shall not be located within 10 feet of water storage tanks in contact with the ground or potable water lines 14 unless such lines are sealed with a water proof sealant within a sleeve of similar material pipe to a distance of at least 10 feet 15 from the nearest p0l1ion of the system or the water lines themselves consist of schedule 40 pev or stronger. In no case shall 16 the water line be located within 24 inches of the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system. Potable water lines within 5 feet 17 of the drainfield shall not be located at an elevation lower than the drainfield absorption surface. Non-potable water lines shall 18 not be located within 24 inches of the system without backflow devices per Sections 381.0065(2)(1) I. and 2., F.S., being 19 installed on the water line to preclude contamination of the water system. Systems shall not be constructed within 10 feet of 20 DEP-regulated water mains as defined in rule 62-555.314, F.A.C. 21 (c) No change 22 (3) through (9) No change

23 Rulemaking Authority 381.0065(3)(a), 489.553, 489.557(1) FS. Law Implemented 381.0065,489.553 FS. History-New 12-22-24 82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly IOD-6.46, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.046, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98, 3-22-25 00, 5-24-04, 6-25-09'-------.

26

27

28 62-555.314 Location of Public Water System Mains. 29 30 For the purpose of this section, the phrase "water mains" shall mean mains, including treatment plant 31 process piping, conveying either raw, partially treated, or finished drinking water; fire hydrant leads; and 32 service lines that are under the control of a public water system and that have an inside diameter of three 33 inches or greater. 34 (1) Horizontal Separation Between Underground Water Mains and Sanitary or Storm Sewers, Wastewater or 35 Stormwater Force Mains, Reclaimed Water Pipelines, and On-Site Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems. 36 (a) New or relocated, underground water mains shall be laid to provide a horizontal distance of at least three 37 feet between the outside of the water main and the outside of any existing or proposed storm sewer, stormwater 38 force main, or pipeline conveying reclaimed water regulated under Part III of Chapter 62-610, FAC. 39 (b) New or relocated, underground water mains shall be laid to provide a horizontal distance of at least three 40 feet, and preferably ten feet, between the outside of the water main and the outside of any existing or proposed 41 vacuum-type sanitary sewer. 42 (c) New or relocated, underground water mains shall be laid to provide a horizontal distance of at least six feet, 43 and preferably ten feet, between the outside of the water main and the outside of any existing or proposed gravity-44 or pressure-type sanitary sewer, wastewater force main, or pipeline conveying reclaimed water not regulated under 45 Part III of Chapter 62-610, FAC. The minimum horizontal separation distance between water mains and gravity-46 type sanitary sewers shall be reduced to three feet where the bottom of the water main is laid at least six inches 47 above the top of the sewer. 48 (d) New or relocated, underground water mains shall be laid to provide a horizontal distance of at least 49 ten feet between the outside of the water main and all parts of any existing or proposed "on-site sewage 50 treatment and disposal system" as defined in Section 381.0065(2), F.S., and Rule 64E-6.002, F.A.C.

51

# 10-16 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 9/13/2010 10:17:45AM

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Subject: Flow Calculation - Multi-purpose rooms

Rule Sections: 64E-6.008

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

We currently have no specific language for sizing multi­purpose rooms. Long-standing policy is to use the fire marshal's maximum occupancy X 4 gallons per person.

David Hammonds

The proposed changes codify an estimated daily sewage flow for a multi-purpose room using the state fire marshal's occupancy estimate and flow rates from other activities.

1 0-16--64E-6.00B_Mu Iti-purpose-rooms.doc (See Attached)

Provides an estimated sewage flow calculation for multi­purpose rooms.

There shouldn't be a significant impact as this proposal incorporates existing procedures. 8/31/2010

;1 .-'

1 64E-6.008 System Size Determinations. 2 (I) Minimum design flows for systems serving any structure, building or group of buildings shall be based on the 3 estimated daily sewage flow as determined from Table I or the following: 4 (a) No change 5 (b) No change

TYPE OF EST ABLISHMENT COMMERCIAL: Airports to Mobile Home Park No change Multi-purpose room

TABLE I For System Design

ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS

Based on 75% of the fire marshal's maximum occupancy (a) Per person not more than 3 hours per day (b) Per person not more than 8 hours per day (c) Per person not more than 16 hours per day (d) Per person over 16 hours per day

Office building to Residences No change 6 7 Footnotes to Table I: 8 I. through 6. No change 9 (2) to (6) No change

GALLONS PER DAY

4

12 30 50

10 Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065(3)(a) FS. Law Implemented 381. 0065 FS. History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 11 IOD-6.48, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.048, Amended 11-19-97,3-22-00,9-5-00, 11-26-06,6-25-09'----.

# 10-18 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 9/23/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: Repair Permit Fees

Rule Sections: 64E-6.003

Printed 9/13/2010 10:18:04 AM

Current rule exempts repair permits from the permit fee if the system is less than one year old.

Dale Holcomb, DOH

The proposed changes eliminates the repair permit fee exemption for systems that fail within one year of initial installation.

10-18--64E-6.003_Repair_PermitJee.doc (See Attached)

The proposal will make the $55 fee apply equally to all repair permits.

$55 to people who seek system repairs within one year of installation. (approximately 50 people per year). 9/10/2010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

D D

1 64E-6.003 Permits. 2 (I) System Construction Permit - No portion of an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be installed, 3 repaired, altered, modified, abandoned or replaced until an "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Construction 4 Permit" has been issued on Form DH 40 I 6. Ifbuilding construction has commenced, the system construction permit shall be 5 valid for an additional 90 days beyond the eighteen month expiration date. ,\ fcc 3hall not he charged for a repair permit i:;:;ued 6 within 12 month:; from ~date of final authorization 0 Fthe on:;ite 3ewage treatment and di:;po:;al [;y:;tem. If a construction or 7 repair permit for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is transferred to another person the date of the construction or 8 repair permit shall not be amended, but shall run from the date of original issuance prior to the transfer. Servicing or replacing 9 with like kind mechanical or electrical parts of an approved onsite sewage treatment and disposal system; pumping of septage

10 from a system; or making minor structural corrections to a tank, or distribution box, does not constitute a repair. 11 (2) through(6) No change

12 Rulemaking Authority 381. 0065 (3)(a) , 489.553(3), 489.557(1) FS. Law Implemented 381.0065,381.0067, 386.041 FS. 13 History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 10D-6.43, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, 5-14-96, 2-13-97, Formerly 10D-14 6.043, Amended 3-22-00,4-21-02.5-24-04. 11-26-06,6-25-09'-------.

15

Holcomb, Dale

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Attachments:

:':.·~;·.;'·.l .. ' •. If!J. I ..

Orenco track Orenco

Roeder, Eberhard Friday, September 10, 2010 2:27 PM Briggs, Gerald R; Holcomb, Dale FW: comments TRAP issues #10-11 and #08-09

Orenco track changes 64E-6.0295 .doc; Orenco underline_strikethrough 64E-6.0295.doc; ATT5288978. txt

:hanges 64E-6.029. Jerline_strikethrougl A TT5288978. txt

(66 B)

-----Original Message-----From: Jason Churchill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:13 PM To: Roeder, Eberhard Subject: comments TRAP issues #10-11 and #08-09

Eb--

Please accept this email as Orenco Systems' comments and forward to the TRAP for consideration at the upcoming meeting.

I have attached proposed changes to the language at 64E-6.0295 regarding Innovative Systems Reclassification (Issue #10-11).

The changes are based on the version you presented to the TRAP at the July 15 meeting. The changes are shown in Word "Track Changes" format--you can easily "Accept All" the changes to see what the final wording would look like if my suggested language is adopted. (The Track Changes format also allows you to see a few questions/ suggestions I inserted as Word "Comments" inserted in the margins.)

I have also attached the same proposed language changes in underline/ strikethrough format if you prefer that.

My suggested changes to your proposed language are shown in underline/ strikethrough format.

Although your proposed language seems to reflect a sincere effort to address some of the concerns I have expressed in the past, I found it confusing and hard to understand, and there were some notable deficiencies. I have tried to address those deficiencies and make the language more clear and understandable in my suggested changes.

Specifically

The Department has informed us that per Florida Statute section 381.0065(2) (g) an advanced treatment system technology MUST be considered "innovative U

until it has been successfully field tested in Florida. Moreover, section 381.0065 (3) (e), F.S., requires that the Department limit the number of innovative systems that may be installed until "there is compelling evidence that the system will function properly and reliably to meet the requirements of this section and rules adopted under this section. u

Compelling evidence of satisfactory performance based on in-state field-testing is lacking for many of the systems that have been "grandfathered in" as non- Innovative systems since the adoption of the Innovative testing program--yet the Department has not acted to limit the number of permitted installations.

The language currently under consideration by the TRAP apparently would allow some technologies currently "grandfathered-in" to maintain their non-Innovative status based on section (3) (c) test results alone. There seems to be no absolute requirement that they

1

undergo Innovative field-testing in Florida as the statute demands.

Nor does the current language include any requirement that performance be fully demonstrated by independent 3rd party field- testing at actual residences, in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter. As you know, the performance capabilities of advanced wastewater treatment systems cannot be fully validated without a sufficient body of real­world test data--that is, test results from actual residential installations, where the sample collection and evaluation is under the oversight of an independent 3rd party agency.

In my proposed changes, I have incorporated a requirement at (3) (d) that manufacturers submit performance testing data from a minimum of four (4) Florida residences sampled quarterly for a period of not less than one year. Additionally, I have incorporated a requirement at (3) (e) that manufacturers submit 3rd party field testing data from a minimum of twenty (20) residences (located either in Florida or in other states), with samples collected quarterly for a period of not less than one year.

Also, at (4) (b), I have incorporated a provision requiring that PBTS that cannot produce meeting those minimum field testing requirements in (3) (d) and (e) would be reclassified as Innovative, pending completion of further testing to satisfy those requirements.

I also recommend that the proposed language for Innovative Systems (Issue #08-09, also under consideration by the TRAP) be modified to make it consistent with my suggested changes for Innovative Systems Reclassification at 64E-6.0295. The language for Issue # 08-09 should reflect my suggestion that Innovative testing must include a minimum of four (4) Florida residences tested quarterly for a period of not less than one year.

Thanks for your assistance in bringing my recommendations to the TRAP's attention.

Best Regards,

Jason Churchill Government Relations Representative Orenco Systems, Inc. 814 Airway Ave. Sutherlin, OR 97479 direct phone line: (800) 714-4073 via reception desk: (800) 348-9843 x432 Fax: (541) 459-2884

BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS

Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 02D56cD4W) is spam: Spam: https://antispam.doh.ad.state.fl.us/canit/b.php?i=02D56cD4W&m=f5af8f2d777a&t= 20100910&c=s Not spam: https://antispam.doh.ad.state.fl.us/canit/b.php?i=02D56cD4W&m=f5af8f2d777a&t= 20100910&c=n Forget vote: https://antispam.doh.ad.state.fl.us/canit/b.php?i=02D56cD4W&m=f5af8f2d777a&t= 20100910&c=f

END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS

2

64E-6.0295 Innovative System Reclassification

[Sections (1) and (2) not shown.]

(3) The Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs shall compile data obtained for treatment components during innovative system testing and other testing and publish characteristics of performance. These characteristics shall incl ude:

(a) system description (b) pollutant monitored (c) average third-party performance evaluation results of full-scale systems when tested where

influent and effluent conditions are monitored over a period of at least five months and at least ten influent and effluent data points are available in separate weeks. The characteristics will be flow, influent, effluent and fraction removed. Where multiple such tests are available, the simple average of the tests shall be reported, unless hydraulic residence times varied by a factor of two or more.

(d) first-, second-, or third-patiy field testing datafromsingle-family residential installations in Florida, collected within the previous 15 years, representing quarterly sampling at each residence for a period of not less than one year. The data set shall represent sampling from a minimum of four individual Florida residences.asavaikihle-; The data shall be characterized by average, median, 75th and 90th percentile" Where both influent and effluent were measured at the same system at the same time, an average removal effectiveness shall be estimated.

(e) nl"st~ntl-5{'€f)Htl-third-party field testing data in-J::.18t"i-dafrom single-family residential installations, collected within the previous 15 years--H5-€Ie\;.tFHfH€-al~y-avai+al71e, representing quarterlv sampling at each residence for a period of not less than one vear. The data set shall represent sampling from a minimum of 20 individual residences, including Florida residences per section (3 led), or residences located in states other than Florida. The data shall be characterized by average, median, 75 th and 90th percentile. Where both influent and effluent were measured at the same system at the same time, an average removal effectiveness shall be estimated.

(4) innovative and performance-based treatment systems currently in use shall be reclassified by September 30, 2011. The Department shall review the data submitted for each svstem according to section (3), and determine whether the svstem is eligible for reclassification as a non-innovative performance based treatment svstem. The determination will be made based on,an&-th{..,--uata repoFtcu··according-Io-seclion-f3}sGreenedacc0Hling-to the following criteria. (a) data for 3(c) that were not gathered over a period of at least five months with at least ten influent

and effluent data points available in separate weeks within the previous 15 years will not be considered.

(b) inm·WaBV€--c'1M"fcrfBRffilHC{.."--OO5efHR>aHnenl-systems that have data satisfying the minimum data requirements of 3( d) and (e)tobeconsidert'Eiaftersuhseclion+a)hlb-beenimplemenledandal le-asf·30{latapnintscornbinedin(3J{d)-{}JKf(e},orlhathavealleast-50datapoint~;€D+nbinedjn

(3-ltdl-ane+:--,-), shall be eligible for reclassification as non-innovative performance based treatment systems. Systems that lack sufficient data to satisfY the minimum requirements of (3)( dl and (e) shall be reclassified as innovative systems, l7FHv-i-defl.+ltaHAer-e--+c.--an--enlity--wHlill't\ topnwide·therequiH.'d-informatiml,.-pending completion offUliher testing necessarv to satisfy those requirements.

Comment [JCll: What is a "full-scale system"? How is that term defined? Is this referring to standardized testing under controlled conditions. in contrast to field-testing at actual residences?

Comment [JC2l: When publishing this data, the DOI-I should indicate in each case whether the data was collected by a first-, second-, or third-party agent.

(c) information required by section (I) must be ts-on file with the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs.

(5) by September 30, 2011, the Bureau of On site Sewage Programs shall propose rule language for performance-based treatment systems that addresses differences between results from testing with controlled and uncontrolled flows for the review of performance-based treatment systems and design safety factors. The bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs sl1311 proposed ruie languageto address consideration of nitrogen removal in the soil, provided that the final report of the Phase II of study required by HB5001 of the 2010 Florida legislature is completed. In the interim the following review standards shall apply in evaluating proposed performance oftreatment components.

(a) for cBOD5, and TSS, average effluent concentrations of results from (3)( c), subject to (4), or from combined results of 3( d) and ( e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not be considered.

(b) for fecal coliform, &vH&g€-geometric mean effluent concentration-fel'fH results from (3)(c), subject to (4), and provided that the geometric mean of the influent concentrationsof over the evaluation period exceeds 1,000,000 colony forming units per 100 mL, or from combined (3)( d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness may be considered up to advanced secondary treatment standards if the site-specific design includes monitoring to verify performance.

(c) for total nitrogen, average removal effectiveness 4-fem-results from (3)( c), subject to (4), or from<11Jeast20datapHinhcombined results from (3)( d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard of the system. For the purposes of this section, this standard shall be 50% for advanced secondary, 62% for Florida Keys, and 90% for advanced wastewater treatment standards. Where average removal effectiveness cannot be determined, average effluent concentrations from combined results of (3)(d) and (e) shall meet the average annual treatment performance standards proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not be considered.

(d) for total phosphorus, systems treating all domestic sewage or fractions of the greywater of an establishment in at least one treatment receptacle may be deemed to comply with the average effluent concentrations for advanced secondary treatment performance standards. For other systems, average effluent concentration ff(}111-results resulh-from (3)( c), subject to (4), or from combined results of (3)( d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed, or the design engineer may provide data showing that the influent concentration meets the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not be considered.

Comment [JC3]: What do you mean by the terms "controlled and uncont;olled noli'S"? [s the intended distinction between testing under controlled conditions at a research facility versus testing at actual residences?

64E-6.0295 Innovative System Reclassification

[Sections (1) and (2) not shown.]

(3) The Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs shall compile data obtained for treatment components during innovative system testing and other testing and publish characteristics of performance. These characteristics shall include:

(a) system description (b) pollutant monitored (c) average third-party performance evaluation results of full-scale systems when tested where

influent and effluent conditions are monitored over a period of at least five months and at least ten influent and effluent data points are available in separate weeks. The characteristics will be flow, influent, effluent and fraction removed. Where multiple such tests are available, the simple average of the tests shall be reported, unless hydraulic residence times varied by a factor of two or more.

(d) first-, second-, or third-party field testing data from single-family residential installations in Florida, collected within the previous 15 years, representing quarterly sampling at each residence for a period of not less than one year. The data set shall represent sampling from a minimum of four individual Florida residences. as available, The data shall be characterized by average, median, 75th and 90th percentile~ Where both influent and effluent were measured at the same system at the same time, an average removal effectiveness shall be estimated.

(e) first, and second third-party field testing data in Florida from single-family residential installations, collected within the previous 15 years as electronically available, representing quarterly sampling at each residence for a period of not less than one year. The data set shall represent sampling from a minimum of 20 individual residences, including Florida residences per section (3)(d), or residences located in states other than Florida. The data shall be characterized by average, median, 75th and 90th percentile. Where both influent and effluent were measured at the same system at the same time, an average removal effectiveness shall be estimated.

(4) innovative and performance-based treatment systems currently in use shall be reclassified by September 30, 2011. The Department shall review the data submitted for each system according to section (3), and determine whether the system is eligible for reclassification as a non-innovative performance based treatment system. The determination will be made based on, and the data reported according to section (3) screened according to the following criteria. (a) data for 3(c) that were not gathered over a period of at least five months with at least ten influent

and effluent data points available in separate weeks within the previous 15 years will not be considered.

(b) innovative and performance based treatment systems that have data satisfying the minimum data requirements of 3 (d) and (e) to be considered after subsection (a) has been implemented and at least 30 data points combined in (3)(d) and (e), or that have at least 50 data points combined in (3)(d) and (e), shall be eligible for reclassification as non-innovative performance based treatment systems. Systems that lack sufficient data to satisfy the minimum requirements of (3)(d) and (e) shall be reclassified as innovative systems, provided that there is an entity willing to provide the required information. pending completion of further testing necessary to satisfy those requirements.

(c) information required by section (l) must be is on file with the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs-,-

(5) by September 30, 2011, the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs shall propose rule language for performance-based treatment systems that addresses differences between results from testing with controlled and uncontrolled flows for the review of performance-based treatment systems and design safety factors. The bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs shall proposeEl rule language to address consideration of nitrogen removal in the soil, provided that the final report of the Phase II of study required by HB500 1 of the 2010 Florida legislature is completed. In the interim the following review standards shall apply in evaluating proposed performance of treatment components.

(a) for cBOD5, and TSS, average effluent concentrations-ef.results from (3)(c), subject to (4), or from combined results of 3( d) and ( e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not be considered.

(b) for fecal coliform, geometric mean average effluent concentration fefm results from (3)(c), subject to (4), and provided that the geometric mean of the influent concentrationsef over the evaluation period exceeds 1,000,000 colony forming units per 100 mL, or from combined (3)(d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness may be considered up to advanced secondary treatment standards if the site-specific design includes monitoring to verify performance.

(c) for total nitrogen, average removal effectiveness from results from (3)(c), subject to (4), or from at least 20 Elata points combined results from (3)( d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard of the system. For the purposes of this section, this standard shall be 50% for advanced secondary, 62% for Florida Keys, and 90% for advanced wastewater treatment standards. Where average removal effectiveness cannot be determined, average effluent concentrations from combined results of (3)( d) and ( e) shall meet the average annual treatment performance standards proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not be considered.

(d) for total phosphorus, systems treating all domestic sewage or fractions of the greywater of an establishment in at least one treatment receptacle may be deemed to comply with the average effluent concentrations for advanced secondary treatment performance standards. For other systems, average effluent concentration from results results from (3)(c), subject to (4), or from combined results of (3)( d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed, or the design engineer may provide data showing that the influent concentration meets the average annual treatment perfonpance standard proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not be considered.